Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR.SPEAKER in the chair]

PRIVATE BUSINEES

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL(MONEY)BILL (By Order)

Order for second Reading read.

To be read a second time upon Thursday 17 June at seven o'clock.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)

Order for second Reading read.

To be read a second time upon Thursday 17 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE,FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farm prices

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to introduce to protect the interests of both consumers and farmers in the light of the European Economic Community Council of Ministers' decision to accept majority voting on the farm prices review.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on agricultural prices.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on 19 May.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister agree that the acceptance of majority voting on the farm price review creates the great danger that in future years the British housewife will have to pay, through increased prices, for the voracious financial appetite of Continental farmers, particularly French farmers? Therefore, will the Minister accept that there may be a need for Britain to withdraw from the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I do not accept that there is a need to withdraw from the common agricultural policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be discussing future procedures at the meeting later this month, and I hope that a satisfactory solution to the problem will be found.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree—I think that he might this time—that the effect of increasing common agricultural policy prices above that which we agreed, taken in isolation from the budget, has two

effects? The first is to increase our net contribution, and the second is to increase the price to the British consumer of the £1,000 million net of European food that we import. They vote and we pay. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is entirely unacceptable?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. What is wholly unacceptable is the exaggerated figure of £1,000 million. The figures produced by one consumer organisation have been shown to be blatantly inaccurate. For example, the figures included tropical food products which do not come into the CAP.

Mr. Buchan: Has the Minister seen the text of the letter sent by Agricultural Commissioner Paul Dalsager to Commissioner Gaston Thorn, in which he points out that they have seriously underestimated the full cost of the agreement—he estimates by about 700 million or 800 million units of account. Does the Minister agree that this will therefore cost the British taxpayer and consumer another £400 million?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I have not seen the text of such a letter and there has been no confirmation from the Commission that such a letter has been sent.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend accept that whatever the financial mechanics of the recent result, it has been desperately unfair to Britain and to British consumers? Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that an amendment is written into the Treaty of Rome, by addendum or in some other way, to ensure that it does not happen again?

Mr. Walker: Yes, it is important that the principle of unanimity continues in Common Market agreements in areas where national interests are at stake. That point has been made clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although we have lost out in the only area where there has been majority voting to date, are there any issues or areas in which we could benefit by majority voting? Has the Minister given any consideration to promoting those issues?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. In terms of the principle of majority voting, one accepts, or does not accept, the principle that a country has the right to declare that a national interest is at stake. One does not calculate whether on some issues it would be an advantage and on others a disadvantage. It is an important principle, which has to be adhered to in the Community.

Wheat (Levy)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of levy per tonne of wheat imported into the United Kingdom from countries outside the European Economic Community.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith): Yesterday's levy was £72·38 per tonne.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the farm gate price for wheat is only £123 per tonne, which is high for Britain and suggests that the levy is nearly two-thirds the cost of home grown wheat? In that case, does he agree that even if the cost of wheat represented as little as one-third of the cost of bread, using imported wheat without levy


could bring the price of bread down by 15 to 20 per cent. at a stroke? If he does not agree with those figures, will he place his Department's calculations in the Library?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate this matter, because the levy amounts to less than 2p on the price of a standard loaf. That is the effect at the consumer end. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the threshold price for wheat and the levy that must be paid—particularly as this is wheat in respect of which the Community is not self-supporting—is too high. We have tried, and we shall continue to do so, to bring that price down.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does not the Minister accept that the cost to the livestock sector of the farming community of this level of levy is prohibitive?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This question relates to strong wheat, which is of particular interest to our baking industry. The issue of importance is the discrimination against our baking industry in obtaining a raw material that it cannot get from within the Community. That is what is wrong.

Mr. Jay: What does the figure of £70 a tonne amount to as a percentage of the import price?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At present, the world price for wheat—we cannot necessarily be sure what quantities will be available at that price—is around £84 per tonne. On the other hand, and contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the actual market price for strong wheat in the United Kingdom is around £130 per tonne.

Tenant Farmers

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to prevent further loss of land for letting to tenant farmers.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have nothing to add to the replies given on 1 April and 6 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle). We are continuing to consider what action is required to encourage the letting of land to tenant farmers.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce legislation to implement the CLA-NFU agreement? What discussions has he had with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the need for fiscal measures to encourage new lettings, and what steps does he propose to take to ensure that county councils no longer sell vacant tenancies into private ownership?

Mr. Walker: The selling of tenanted land is something about which the county councils must, as democratically elected bodies, take their own decisions. We are considering what should take place in legislation, and that will obviously be considered within the context of the Government's future legislative programme. As to implementing the CLA-NFU agreement, I hope that as part of an alliance the hon. Gentleman will confer with his colleagues in the other half of that alliance who have made it clear that they would wish to make substantial amendments to the CLA-NFU agreement.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the consequences of the shortage of land

is that last year there was an average increase in farm rents of about 25 per cent. in England, and rather more in Scotland. In the light of that, will he now give further consideration to introducing changes in the system of rent arbitration?

Mr. Walker: In the context of the whole question of tenanted and rented land, that is one of the matters that we are carefully considering.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister recognise that over a number of years the pattern of agricultural subsidies has tended to favour large-scale farming operations and, thereby, the incorporation of smaller holdings into larger ones. Will he recognise that that factor, as well as the sale of smallholdings by county councils, has diminished the amount of tenanted land available? In those circumstances, he ought not to pay too much attention to the Country Landowners Association.

Mr. Walker: The agreement is not one by the CLA alone. It has also been arrived at by the NFU, which represents the majority of tenanted farmers in Britain. I have had no complaints from either the smaller farmers or the tenanted farmers about progress on the price structure and so on. Indeed, among farmers of every description—tenanted and others—I find a complete dislike and disfavour of the Labour Party's current proposals to nationalise the land.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends do not think that the last Session of this Parliament is the most appropriate time to implement the CLA-NFU agreement? However, those hon. Members hope that the agreement will be implemented in the first Session of the next Parliament.

Mr. Walker: I take note of my hon. Friend's views.

Hill Farmers

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional resources will be available to hill farmers following the European Economic Community price agreement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Hill farmers will benefit from the improved levels of support for sheep and cattle arising from the price settlement.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of agriculture generally for the negotiations that he and his colleagues carried out in Europe? He will have seen the recent figures, which show a drop in the income of hill farmers. Therefore, will be ensure that in the current year they receive the maximum grants and allowances to which they are entitled?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. One of the good things arising out of this price review is the better position of livestock producers in relation to cereal producers. That is something that we worked for and welcome. The hill livestock compensatory amounts have increased by more than 50 per cent. under this Government. That shows that we are concerned about the interests of hill farmers. Together with the better price agreement that we achieved this year, that should give them some assurance for the coming livestock year.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that support of the hill farmer is an essential part of the policy


of preventing the denuding of the Highland glens, and that the Government's record in that respect is something of which we can all be proud?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying so. It is also important in another sense, in that our hill farmers contribute to the health of agriculture and the economy as a whole and also work for the benefit of British consumers.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Why will the Government not pay the £29 to our beef producers under EEC rules?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the suckler cow subsidy. As he knows, the level of that was reduced in the price review. We have decided that we shall pay from our funds the amount by which it has been reduced, so that it will remain at the same level. It is an option whether we increase it and we have decided not to do so. On the other hand, however, the fact that we have an improvement in the beef premium scheme, where we have gone from 25 per cent. Community funding to 40 per cent., indicates the considerable extent of what we achieved in the price review.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have the proposals for a marginal land scheme been submitted to Brussels, and if so, what is happening?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: They have not yet been submitted to Brussels. When we have completed consideration and preparation of the case, we shall do so.

Sheep

Mr. Myles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take steps to ameliorate the effect of clawback on sheep exported to other Community countries.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: During the seven months up to March, exports to other Community countries have averaged over 4,500 tonnes a month, which compares favourably with trade in recent years.

Mr. Myles: I recognise that British sheepmeat exporters have coped remarkably well with the problems of the sheepmeat agreement, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems they are now experiencing are very great? Will he therefore take steps to try to ameliorate those problems?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The figures that I mentioned indicate that some of the fears that were originally voiced about this export trade were not realised. I pay tribute to the efforts of our exporters. At the same time, I acknowledge that there are at present substantial difficulties, just as there were at exactly the same time last year. We shall take any opportunity within the Community to improve these arrangements and do our best in the interests of our export trade.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Flannery: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to have further discussions on the common agricultural policy with his counterparts in the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir, on 14 June.

Mr. Flannery: May we assume that in any discussions with his counterparts the Minister will again raise vigorously the whole question of the veto? Did the right hon. Gentleman not hear the Foreign Ministers say yesterday that the re-establishment of the right of veto was something for which Britain would have to fight? What will happen if our rights are violated, as they already have been, and our people are hurt and injured by the CAP? What will we do in those circumstances if the right of veto is not forthcoming? Will he consider withdrawal at least from the CAP, or, as many of us would like, from the Common Market?

Mr. Walker: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear in his Council of Ministers—the Council that is primarily responsible for the procedures of the Community—the matter will be raised at the next meeting. We have had major discussions and my right hon. Friend has clearly expressed the Government's views.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some anxiety about the impact on British agriculture and horticulture of the inclusion of Spain and Portugal in the EEC? Has he made an estimate of what that impact might be? If so, will he publish it?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. At present, negotiations must examine the various formats of a transitional arrangement. In general, there will be some considerable advantages as well as problems from Spanish accession to the EEC, as many of Spain's food imports are produced in Britain. When finalising our negotiating position we must examine both the advantages and the disadvantages.

Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Mr.Dalsager or another Commissioner to obtain a copy of the text of the letter that the right hon. Gentlman, extraordinarily, does not seem to have read? It was published verbatim in the last issue of Agra-Europe. Is the Minister aware that it says that they have seriously underestimated the cost of the price agreement and that it will cost several hundred million pounds more? Does the Minister agree that he has concealed that cost from the British people?

Mr. Walker: I have sought and will continue to seek the most updated. figures on the estimates of the Commission. I asked at the last meeting what the exact costs were. I also asked for a detailed assessment of the updated costs, post the agreement from the Commission. As soon as they are available to the United Kingdom I shall see that they are published and made available.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend explain slowly and carefully to the Opposition that there is no way in which Britain, a major exporting country, can secure the larger share of the home market that it needs without accepting in return some form of CAP?

Mr. Walker: Having almost doubled the proportion of the agricultural budget that comes to Britain during the past three years, we are now in a rather stronger position than we were three years ago to support the advantages as well as to recognise the disadvantages of such a policy.

Farm Production

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the level of farm production in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. The situation described in the "Annual Review of Agriculture 1982" White Paper, Command. 8491, is satisfactory.

Mr. Thorne: Does the Minister agree that increased productivity of British farms could be achieved if we used to that end the contribution that we make to the Common Market?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman intends to follow that line, he must realise that any other system could cost the taxpayer up to £2,000 million per year in deficiency payments. If that is his choice, I hope that he will say so.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of horticultural production? If he is, is he satisfied with the level of horticultural profitability for the industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. There have been problems in some parts of horticulture. I acknowledge them. My hon. Friend will know, both from our support for marketing and on fuel costs, that there has been ample evidence during the past few years of our concern. We have demonstrated it in practical terms for that important section of the industry.

Mr. Spearing: Although the Minister may be satisfied with production, is he not worried about over-production, especially of cereals? Does that not mean that, in addition to the levies, the taxpayer must pay £50-plus for exports of surplus wheat and barley, as well as having to support the Minister in a programme, which is also backed by public money, to export British food?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, I am worried that products are in surplus. The hon. Gentleman will know that we did our best to achieve restraint at the last price negotiations for those products. I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's comments if he showed some pride for and appreciation of what British agriculture has achieved. From 1978 to 1980 self-sufficiency in the commodities that we can grow increased from 67 to 75 per cent. In terms of savings on imports, that means that agriculture is saving about £1 billion more this year in foreign exchange than three years ago.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a substantial body of opinion among the Opposition that it is neither important nor relevant for the United Kingdom to have an agriculture industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

European Community (Exports to Russia)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Economic Community Council of Ministers last discussed the export of subsidised food to the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On 5 February 1980.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it right or tolerable that we still export millions of tonnes of food and wine to the Soviet Union at knock-down prices, when our consumers must pay Common Market taxes of up to £1 per pound on beef and 50p per pound on butter? As the Government have been talking about that matter for years, is it not intolerable that the export of subsidised food and wine to Russia is greater than ever before?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend on 8 April this year, we are not happy about that. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the matter. I should have more respect for what he said if he did not exaggerate, but showed some appreciation of what we have already achieved. We have opposed any special subsidy—no special subsidies favouring Russia are in force. On two commodities that have caused anxiety—butter and butter oil—there is no subsidy and therefore no exports. I should respect what my hon. Friend has said more if he acknowledged what had been achieved.

Mr. Geraint Howells: We all know that there are surpluses in the Community. Do the Government have any plans to give such surpluses to the young, the needy and the elderly in Britain?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the butter subsidy that we have achieved, the fact that we operate premium schemes on beef and sheepmeat that are of direct benefit to British consumers, and that, last but not least, at the last price fixing we considerably improved—by 25 per cent.—the sum available under the school milk scheme. All of those demonstrate our interest in the matter.

Luxembourg Compromise

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, at the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Community, he will table a further strong protest regarding the recent abandonment of the Luxembourg compromise and seek a clear assurance that the recent incident will not be repeated.

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to convene a meeting of European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers in order to reverse the decision on the farm price review.

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise the subject of the farm price review at the next meeting of European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Government regret the way in which the Community's customary procedures were set aside at the Agriculture Council on 18 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made that clear to our partners. Foreign Ministers will return to the subject of the Luxembourg compromise on 20 June, when the Government hope that a clear understanding will be reached for the future.

Mr. Latham: Can it be made clear, and without too much diplomatic finesse, both on 20 June by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and on 14 June by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that we will never put up with this type of behaviour again, and that it crucially affects the basis upon which the British people voted "Yes" in the referendum?

Mr. Walker: Yes,Sir.

Mr. Allan Roberts: What will the Government do if the Minister does not obtain satisfaction on 20 June? Does he agree that the issue is one of sovereignity, in which foreign powers are attacking the British consumer?

Mr. Walker: No. I never operate on the basis of making suppositions about what we shall do if we do not succeed. I am sure that we shall succeed.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that some Opposition Members feel more sorrow than anger about the incident, not least because the additional cost that his proposed package will allegedly impose on the CAP could put the future of European planning in jeopardy? I appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to bring a constructive end to this unhappy episode.

Mr. Walker: Yes, we shall certainly do that.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the long struggle to arrive at a common fisheries policy, does the Minister agree that if the Government continue negotiations on fisheries without the Luxembourg compromise being on the table the chances of achieving any deal in favour of or even fair to our fishermen are almost non-existent?

Mr. Walker: I agree that for a common fisheries policy, or, indeed, any other policy, it is right to have the principle of unanimity. The last time that we failed to secure a fisheries agreement was due to the use of the Luxembourg compromise by another country. But for that, we might have agreed a policy that our fishing industry required and wanted. Irrespective of that experience, however, it is absolutely right to have the principle of unanimity.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the great concern in the fishing industry at the implications of this breach of the Luxembourg compromise, will the Minister now do what we have long been asking him to do and set out in a statement what Britain regards as its legal rights to exclude Common Market fishing vessels from British waters after 31 December?

Mr. Walker: As my hon. Friend well knows, no Government have worked more closely with the fishing industry than we have in the past three years. Only this morning I had further deliberations with the industry. We are working together on negotiations on the common fisheries policy and will continue to do so.

Mr. Beith: Whatever the dispute over farm prices, several other countries believe that the Luxembourg compromise is still in operation and would be prepared to operate it. Does that not apply to the fishing industry, or is the Minister now in a more optimistic frame of mind about the fishing issue after his discussions with the French?

Mr. Walker: I am not in a particularly optimistic frame of mind about the fishing negotiations, because there are many factors involved, concerning not just France, but Denmark and other countries. Having experienced several sets of fishing negotiations, I remain, until agreement is reached, neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It is true, of course, that within minutes of violating the Luxembourg compromise a number of member countries such as France and Italy swore their future allegiance to the compromise.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister accept his guilt in this matter? Does he agree that his foolishness and ineptitude

in having already accepted most of the inordinately high prices led the other countries to assume that they could go ahead? The real question, however, is what he intends to do about it. Does he accept that the House is entitled to know this in advance of the meeting, because the House agreed to enter the Common Market on the basis of the false promises and the false premise? We therefore wish to know in advance what the Minister intends to do. If he cannot get agreement, is he prepared to withdraw the section of the European budget that is applied to create these high food prices?

Mr. Walker: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". On the first part, I make no apology for those parts of an agreement in which I secured double the butter subsidy achieved by the Labour Government and massively improved the beef premium scheme that they had achieved.

Mr. John Evans: What about the higher prices?

Mr. Walker: I shall come to them. I also massively improved the school milk subsidy achieved by the Labour Government. Finally, the total effect on prices in a full year is that which was achieved by the Labour Government every three weeks.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has so far had on agriculture.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Not all of the provisions of the Act are as yet in force. It is therefore too early to assess its impact on agriculture. But it is already providing a stimulus for much constructive debate in the countryside and I believe that full co-operation by all concerned will ensure its success.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, so far, the Act has actually been a disappointment to all those who wanted to stop the destruction of a great deal of Britain's countryside and to ensure that it was preserved? Does she realise that we want action from the Government and not excuses for failing to protect Britain's countryside?

Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that that is a great exaggeration. I have pointed out that some parts of the legislation have not yet come into full effect, so the hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Act has been a disappointment. Indeed, all the signs are that the contrary will be the case.

Sir Albert Contain: Is the Minister satisfied that enough publicity has been given to the contents of the Act? Should not more publicity be given in schools, for instance, about the purpose of the Act and the need to make the countryside a better place?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will be aware that this is primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment. Nevertheless, with regard to my Ministry, ADAS is doing a great deal to ensure that there is publicity about the Act and we shall be constantly watching its implementation. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is made aware of my hon. Friend's concern about publicity.

Mr. Spearing: In paying tribute to the efficiency of farmers and, particularly, plant breeders, may I ask the


Minister to confirm that, as well as paying high costs, high levies and high export refunds for food, it will be possible under the Act for the public to pay farmers for not producing food? Is that one of the provisions of the Act? Does she agree that such a precedent must be examined very closely?

Mrs. Fenner: No, I do not agree that that will be an effect of the Act, any more than I agree with the hon. Gentleman's exaggerated comments about the increases in food prices in the CAP review.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the helpful approach of the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council has made farmers well aware of their responsibility for conservation? Does she also agree that the confrontation forecast by the Labour Party has not taken place?

Mrs. Fenner: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, a major role is being played by ADAS in encouraging the co-operation of farmers.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware of the brutal official vandalism of the countryside that is taking place under the Act? Is she aware that in a recent "Farming Today" programme the interviewer said that he was standing in a field of 1,000 acres? Does she realise that that means that ditches, hedgerows and so on have been destroyed and that posterity will agree that the farmers, and not people from the cities, have vandalised the countryside? Is she aware that nothing is being done to prevent this, which is taking place in the interests of immediate profits? Is it not disgraceful that wildlife is suffering dreadfully because of the official despoliation of the countryside, leaving large chunks of it looking like the prairies of Canada?

Mrs. Fenner: I am sorry to disagree so much with the hon. Gentleman, but the contrary is true. Removal of boundary hedges, for instance, has not been eligible for grants since 1974. Moreover, advice from ADAS shows that the rate of hedgerow removal has declined markedly in recent years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like many others, will be delighted to know that.

Horticulturists (Energy Costs)

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the solution reached to the problem of Dutch horticultural gas prices will provide fully equivalent energy costs to horticulturalists in all European Economic Community States.

Mrs. Fenner: I am satisfied that the agreement between the European Commission and the Dutch Government will achieve its aim of removing the distortion of competition in the glasshouse sector caused by the Dutch growers' preferential gas tariff.

Mr. Newens: Can the Minister say when full harmonisation will be achieved, so that our glasshouse growers know when they are supposed to be on the same basis as Dutch growers? Will she give an undertaking here and now to keep the position under careful review so that in future no steps are taken on the other side of the Channel to restore in some other form the advantages against which our growers have had to contend for so long?

Mrs. Fenner: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall certainly be doing that. Under the existing Commission guidelines, the aid that we currently pay to our growers ceases on 31 December this year. The Commission has agreed to give early consideration to extending the guidelines so that aid may continue until April 1983, when the Dutch advantage will be eliminated.

Mr. Latham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress made on this subject, after a long period when no progress at all was made. Will she continue to ensure, however, that close attention is paid to this, as the Dutch have got away with a great deal over the past few years?

Mrs. Fenner: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to have a viable and successful British glasshouse industry.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Will the hon. Lady also ensure that capital grant-aid to glasshouse producers is equivalent to that which is provided by the Dutch Government to their producers, in order to ensure that fair competition exists within the Community?

Mrs. Fenner: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep that matter under constant review.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British glasshouse industry will be watching the progress of talks between now and the end of December with considerable anxiety? Continuity of assistance between the end of December and April, when the new arrangements come into effect, is important. Will my hon. Friend also undertake to have long-term discussions within the Community to ensure that the energy costs do not get out of kilter in the future?

Mrs. Fenner: I can reiterate to my hon. Friend that the Commission has agreed to give early consideration to the matter of assistance from the end of 1982 until April 1983, when the advantage will be eliminated. We certainly keep the matter under constant review.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is expected to be the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1982.

Mr. Peter Walker: Taking into account the latest revisions proposed by the Commission, the 1982 budget provisions for the common agricultural policy, as estimated by the Commission, are likely to be as to guarantee expenditure £6,898 million and as to guidance expenditure £409 million, making a total of £7,307 million.

Mr. Jay: Is that not a great deal of money and are there not many better ways in which it might be spent?

Mr. Walker: It is, but it covers the whole of agriculture in the EEC. To go over to the deficiency payments system in Britain alone would cost about £2 billion. I know that, with his considerable interest and anxiety on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that in the past three years the budget has increased by only 26 per cent., whereas under the Labour Government it increased by 260 per cent.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister explain to the Labour Party that the CAP has many advantages? One is


that the consumer has not gone short of any food over the past five or six years. Will the Minister also bear in mind that, while it may be slightly expensive, it has tremendous advantages for the whole of the rural scene?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is also true that in the three years that the Conservative Government have been in power the price of food has increased less than the retail price index in general and has been very much to the forefront in the battle against inflation.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is it not true that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the EEC budget goes on the CAP? Will the issue of the restoration of the veto be decided by a majority vote? Will we be allowed to use the veto or will the Government be treated with the same contempt that they were on the last occasion?

Mr. Walker: I gather from the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question that he has been absent for most of Question Time. I am sure that he will read with fascinated interest in Hansard tomorrow the replies already given to that question.

Mr. Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what he has said, the whole policy is in danger of becoming structurally unbalanced because of the rapid fall in the beef breeding herds in the past six years? As my right hon. Friend knows, they have declined by about 25 per cent., from 1·9 million cows per annum to 1·4 million. Will my right hon. Friend look at that matter?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's point is of immense importance and that is why in this price-fixing we are pleased to have obtained substantial improvements in the beef premium scheme. As my hon. Friend also knows, the Government, as part of their policy, have substantially improved the hill subsidies for beef cattle. I hope that a combination of those factors will bring about the restoration of the fortunes of the beef industry that my hon. Friend rightly proposes.

Mr. Buchan: When the Minister gives us the appalling figure £7 billion as the CAP cost, does he realise that most of that is completely wasted money, in so far as it is used to create surpluses which then have to be exported onto the world market and depress it further? Is he not aware that 47 per cent. of that expenditure goes on export subsidies? Would it not be better if we had our own agricultural policy so that we could take advantage of cheaper world prices and use our money to develop British agriculture?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. That is a myth, because the hon. Gentleman looks at world prices in isolation so that they do not reflect the impact that there would be on those world prices if European production were suddenly eliminated and one started to purchase the existing small surplus. That would produce an enormous rise in world prices. Plenty of illustrations in recent years show that that would be the case.

Mr. Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House the value of the net import of foodstuffs to Britain from the European Community? On average, how much is that above world prices at the moment?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. However, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the past three years of Common Market membership the balance of trade has improved by £1 billion as a result of Britain's food and agriculture performance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is attending the NATO summit in Bonn.

Mr. Thorne: Since a long-term settlement of the Falkland Islands problem will demand negotiations with the Argentine, are the Government prepared to start now in order to avoid any further loss of life?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.

Mr. Dickens: As the price of the recovery of the Falkland Islands grows in terms of life, injury and cost, will my right hon. Friend accept that the Argentine is simply not interested in just the Falklands or South Georgia, but also the South Sandwich Islands and British Antartica? Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of that territory is further from Argentina than London airport is from Moscow?

Mr. Whitelaw: If I knew the correct answer to that question I would say "Yes, Sir." As I do not, I am not sure.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman might have used the same technique with the previous answer to advantage. However, may I say that his answer to that question is quite unsatisfactory? I urged upon the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and in a letter to her yesterday, that the Government should take a fresh initiative in the Security Council to see whether an alternative to unconditional surrender can be offered to the Argentine forces. Many hon. Members and people throughout the world have pressed that upon the Government. Such a Security Council resolution would insist that the Argentine agreed to withdraw from the Falklands but would also offer the possibility of negotiation thereafter.
I must urge the right hon. Gentleman to take back to the Cabinet the proposition that the whole matter should be looked at, because if the fighting continues to the bitter end many more lives will be lost on both sides.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has made a serious point that deserves a serious and proper answer.
First, it is important to say that at no time have we demanded unconditional surrender. We have made it clear that if the Argentine forces in Port Stanley announced their wish to withdraw to the mainland they would be given time to do so with dignity and good order. That is their opportunity. Before their invasion we made it clear to the Argentines that we were prepared to discuss matters affecting the future of the islands with them. Even after their invasion we were prepared to do so if they promptly withdrew. However, their response was to insist on ultimate transfer of sovereignty to them as a pre-condition. That was not acceptable.
Since our landings on the islands and the losses that we have incurred, it is unthinkable to negotiate about the future of the islands as if everything was as it had been before. As I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, the situation has moved on and the islanders will


need a breathing space before they can express their views about their future. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish them to do that.

Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We have never disputed the fact that fair offers have been made to the Argentine junta. I am not asking the Government to come forward with a full plan of what they are prepared to negotiate about later, but I repeat that a number of people and countries are saying that the Government should see whether a fresh proposal could be made immediately to the Security Council to help stop the loss of life. The loss of life in the past 24 or 48 hours and the loss of life that may be occurring now adds further weight to that proposition. Once again, I urge the Government to do what many people throughout the world are asking them to do.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I made a careful and considered response to an important request. I stand by that response and have nothing to add to it.

Sir Paul Bryan: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the report of the Overseas Students Trust, which highlights the anomaly of charging students from Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands three times as much for their education as students from Europe are charged, and recommends that students from the British dependent territories should be treated as if they were British born?

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and I assure him that the Government will consider the report very carefully.

Mr. George Robertson: Since the whole country owes an unrepayable debt to those of our forces who have given their lives in the Falkland Islands, will the Government give further consideration to the genuine and deeply felt pleas from relatives that the bodies should be brought home for burial?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence said that the matter will be carefully considered, and it certainly will be.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Home Secretary confirm that as soon as hostilities cease in the Falkland Islands the Government intend to hold a full and fair inquiry into the events leading up to the Argentine invasion? When will such an inquiry begin and how will it be set up?

Mr. Whitelaw: In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister undertook that there would be such an inquiry. She will certainly be in contact with the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss how that might best be promoted.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are somewhat bewildered by the proposal to

repatriate Captain Astiz, since we are not required under the Geneva convention to do so at this stage and bearing in mind that there are still three innocent British citizens, who happen to be journalists, who are being unlawfully detained in Argentina?

Mr. Whitelaw: Captain Astiz has been questioned, as agreed, on behalf of the French and Swedish Governments. He is a prisoner of war. Certain dispositions have to be undertaken in relation to prisoners of war, but there are no positions to be taken against him as far as Britain is concerned.

Mr. Dormand: As the number of long-term unemployed reached 1 million for the first time last week, and as this week's CBI Economic Review says that there is no evidence of an upturn in the economy, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to publish the evidence for the economic recovery that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury assures us is all around us?

Mr. Whitelaw: In recent weeks a number of statistics have shown that the economic recovery is proceeding. I stand by them.

Mr. W. Benyon: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the commander of the task force is not being restrained in his operations to recapture Port Stanley for any political reason?

Mr. Whitelaw: He is not being restrained in any way. The operations are entirely a matter for the commander of the task force.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the NATO summit in Bonn.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Home Secretary find time today to look at reports in the press about the proposals from the Select Committee on Home Affairs for a review procedure for complaints against the police in England and Wales? Does he agree that it would do much for his reputation as a Home Secretary who is committed to fairness and justice as much as he is to law and order if he went for a fully independent review system? Short of that, will he at least commit himself in the White Paper to independent regional assessors?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have undertaken to consider carefully what the Select Committee said. I shall fulfil that undertaking and will come forward with an answer to it and with my proposals for legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend probe the Leader of the Opposition's views a little further? To many of us it sounds as if he is prepared to hand over the Falkland Islands to a Fascist dictatorship, in the hope of saving some lives?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to probe the views of the Leader of the Opposition under any circumstances.

Mr. Alton: What news does the right hon. Gentleman have of the number of casualties sustained so far in the Lebanon? What news does he have of the bombing of refugee camps in and around Beirut? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the unwarranted incursion into the


Lebanon by Israeli forces and tell the House what negotiations the Government have held with our European partners?

Mr. Whitelaw: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot give him the information that he seeks. On his second point, I confirm what my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said—that we wholeheartedly condemn Israeli aggression in the Lebanon. We have demonstrated that in the United Nations and we shall support Mr. Habib and everyone else in seeking an Israeli withdrawal at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Dalyell: At what point did the Prime Minister reveal to her Deputy Prime Minister that she had brushed aside the professional advice on air superiority given by some of her Chiefs of Staff? As a former Scots Guards officer, what did the right hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Whitelaw: She did not do so and so I did not have to say anything.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the comment made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) about the Home Affairs Committee report on complaints against the police, because the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee and heard nothing of the many hours of evidence listened to keenly by those who were members of the Committee and who submitted the report?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the rare occasions that I have to answer at Prime Minister's Question Time, I am always grateful to those who question me on my subjects as Home Secretary. I well understand the great problems that attach to finding the correct solution for complaints against the police. The situation is extremely complex and I hope that the House will bear with me, because we all want to get the answer right.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 10 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that she is ready, if necessary, to turn the Falkland Islands into a fortress for an indefinite period, are we not at least entitled to know the estimated annual cost of all this and where the money is to come from? If, as the Prime Minister said, freedom is expensive but worth defending, when will the Tory Government give greater priority to public investment in jobs to ensure freedom from unemployment for the 3 million people on the dole queue?

Mr. Whitelaw: When the Prime Minister said that freedom was worth defending, she was surely right. The right of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders is worth defending and that is what we are doing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Given the generous offer made by the Australian Government, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the possibility of retaining HMS "Invincible", especially as there is an overwhelming case for having two carriers permanently operational?

Mr. Whitelaw: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have made clear, we are grateful to the Australians for their offer and it will be most carefully considered.

Mr. Abse: How many more men from the 1st Welsh Brigade are to be killed or cruelly mutilated, and how many Welsh mothers are to mourn their sons, before the Prime Minister desists from her provocative and deliberate insistence on unconditional surrender and from an insistence that for eternity the Argentine must not participate in affairs on those islands? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to think as a mother, which she fitfully and publicly did some time ago, and stop the role-playing of a warrior queen?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has made some personal remarks. Perhaps it would be in order for me to reply to him in a similarly personal way. There are a good number of us in the House who fought for a long time in defence of freedom in the world. We are entitled to say that we did. We are entitled to be worried about what strains we are putting on our young soldiers today, but we know in our hearts that it is right to do so.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JUNE—Motion relating to the Industrial Training Board Orders.
Motion relating to the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (Exempted Premises) (Scotland) Regulations.
TUESDAY 15 JUNE AND WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE—Further progress on the Northern Ireland Bill.
THURSDAY 17 JUNE—Motion On the European Community document on the German-Italian proposals on European Union.
Motions on the Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure and on the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure.
The Chairman on Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
FRIDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on the fourth report from the Select Committee on Social Services, Session 1980–81, on Medical Education, House of Commons Paper No. 31 and the relevant Government observations.
MONDAY 2I JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced.
[Debate on Italo-German proposals on European Union (Draft European Act).
Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: Ninth report, Session 1981–82. HC 21-ix (1981–82) para. 4 114-ii].

Mr. Foot: I wish to put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman. First, there may be a need for further statements or possibly a further debate in the House on the Falkland Islands. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account. I repudiate entirely the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), because there has never been any suggestion from the Opposition that the Galtieri occupation of the islands should be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman would not be able to find a single statement by me from this Dispatch Box that would justify such a suggestion. I ask the Leader of the House to give us the undertaking that he has always given on this subject.
Secondly, I understand that the Prime Minister is going to New York next week to engage in the disarmament discussions at the United Nations. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on Monday on that subject? The House has the right to cross-examine her on what she will be saying in New York.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman will obviously make provision for reports to the House on the position in the Middle East which seems to be getting more dangerous hour by hour.
Finally, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about British Rail. We have warned the Government on a number of occasions that a serious crisis was coming upon us. We have made suggestions to the Government about how that crisis could be avoided. We have suggested to the Government how they should come forward with fresh proposals to enable British Rail to do its job for the country as a whole. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure

that there is an early discussion on the subject? We should like a statement to be made to House and a debate. We wish to do our best to ensure that a railway strike is avoided.

Mr. Biffen: First, I happily give the undertaking that facilities will be provided for the House to be informed as appropriate on developments in the South Atlantic.
Secondly, with regard to the disarmament discussions which will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I shall certainly draw to her attention the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am certain that she will wish to take account of them.
Thirdly, I acknowledge the importance of the unhappy dispute in the Middle East and the anxiety of the House to monitor those events, although I have to say at once that no provision has been made in next week's business for a debate on that topic.
Finally, with regard to the problems of British Rail, I note the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that there should be no strike. I hope and believe, therefore, that he will join all of us in exhorting that recourse should be had to discussion, negotiation and conciliation. Whether that would be facilitated by a parliamentary debate is a matter of concern, but no Government time is available for such a discussion next week. There is a Supply day, and the right hon. Gentleman may like to take that into account when deciding his future action.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we are about to have a half-day Supply debate on the National Health Service. There is considerable interest in it. There is a major statement to follow from the Secretary of State for Defence and a Standing Order No. 9 application. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with me that, out of fairness to the debate, business questions ought not to go beyond 3.50 pm by the digital clock.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to introduce legislation this Session to deal with the important matter of data protection?

Mr. Biffen: Not this Session.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Why not?

Mr. Alan Beith: Since the days of devolution legislation in the previous Parliament, has the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends reconsidered their view on the suitability of timetable motions for major constitutional Bills which run into time-wasting tactics?

Mr. Biffen: The Procedure Committee has commented on this topic. We have no reason at this stage to dissent from its comments.

Mr. John Major: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who have strong sympathies with the State of Israel none the less believe that its present actions in the Lebanon are a great danger to all of us? Will he reconsider his remarks of a few moments ago and promise us a debate in the near future on this important subject?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise that there is a strong sense of concern in the House that we have not had a foreign affairs debate for a long time. It weighs on my conscience, but


I must confess that it does not weigh too much on my arithmetic when I look at the crowded state of business for the next few days.

Mr. David Young: I wish to express my concern about the failure to grant a debate on the Middle East. Many of the problems there are exactly the issues for which we claim to be fighting in the Falklands. Many hon. Members are concerned that the right hon. Gentleman has not said when such a debate will take place. I press him urgently to state when time for a debate will be made available.
Secondly, when will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on the proposed redundancies in British Rail workshops?

Mr. Biffen: The situation in British Rail workshops has changed quite considerably since we last discussed the issue in the House. I cannot offer any Government time for a debate on the topic.
I recognise the deep concern that has been expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by the hon. Gentleman, about the Middle East. However, I cannot offer time for a debate next week. I shall bear in mind the anxiety that there should be a debate.

Mr. Richard Needham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present position in the Middle East will lead to a legacy of hate that will take generations to overcome and will threaten the peace of the world? In these circumstances, does he agree that a debate must be forthcoming the week after next if not next week?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot commit myself to a specified time. My hon. Friend has expressed succinctly a number of sentiments that will be argued when a debate is held.

Mr. John Roper: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there have been repeated representations for a debate on disarmament before the Prime Minister visits New York for the United Nations special session on disarmament? We shall welcome a statement from the right hon. Lady, but we believe that it is necessary to have a debate.

Mr. Biffen: No one has been more eloquent in pressing the need for a debate than the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that it was not possible to provide time for one before my right hon. Friend's visit to New York. I do not hold out any early prospect of a debate upon the topic, but I have taken account of the representations made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Clinton Davis: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Cork report on insolvency? Will there be a statement on Government policy? Will he give an assurance that this far-reaching and significant report, which goes to the heart of consumer protection, will not be pigeon-holed by the Government?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will wish fully to evaluate this highly important report. I have no doubt that the Department's reaction will be forthcoming in due course.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the business for next week? Does he agree that this is a debating chamber as well as a legislative chamber? Does he recognise that many of us are sick and tired of stupid legislation being debated in the early hours of the

morning? Does he agree that the British people would think more of this place if we debated some of the major issues of the day—for example, the problems of the Middle East, the Falkland Islands yet again and defence and disarmament—rather than the mish-mash of a constitutional monstrosity for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the caricature of the past weeks's business that has been presented by my hon. Friend. However, I shall note his preferred priorities and bear them in mind. I cannot say that I am immediately persuaded by them.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Given the appallingly high level of unemployment on Merseyside and the increasing number who have been unemployed for over one year, and the fact that in some districts in the area male unemployment has reached 40 per cent., will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity to debate these matters so that we can hear what policie3 the Government have for reinvigorating industry on Merseyside?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede immediately that unemployment is indivisible and that unemployment on Merseyside is part of a wider economic problem that covers the nation. The House will have a full opportunity to advance general economic arguments when we consider the Finance Bill on Report. I can hold out the firm promise that that opportunity will not be long delayed.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If my right hon. Friend is not yet convinced of the wisdom of the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) concerning the Northern Ireland Bill, will he at any rate ensure that adequate time at a reasonable hour is giver to discuss that important constitutional measure so that there is the minimum number of closures and no guillotines?

Mr. Biffen: The orderly progress of the Bill requires at least two to tango.

Mr. Derek Foster: When may we expect a debate on the Northern region, bearing in mind that the number of long-term unemployed in the region has risen to over 1 million? As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the North has more than its fair share of long-term unemployment. Does he agree that the special programmes for the long-term unemployed are derisory? Is he aware that at least 150,000, if not 250,000, of the unemployed are unable to read and write? Is he prepared to say what can be done about that?

Mr. Biffen: No, not in answer to business questions. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to dissent from his premise but to accept that there is a need for an economic debate that will embrace unemployment and related issues. As I said to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), these issues could well arise when the Finance Bill is considered on Report.

Sir Frederic Bennett: We have already had five or six debates on the Falklands and no one makes any complaint about that, but surely it is realistic, bearing in mind that all these debates have had to take place at the expense of consideration of legislation which would otherwise have gone forward, for us all in ever) quarter of the House to urge that equal attention be paid to at least one debate on the Middle East. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the casualties in the Middle East are already


considerably more than those incurred in the Falklands dispute, and throughout the House pressure is being placed on the Government to enable the House to express a point of view. In 10 days it may be too late for us to express a view on events which by then might have reached a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions.

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Successive generations of hon. Members have interested themselves intimately in the affairs of the Middle East. There can be no debate next week, but I shall bear in mind the fact that there is widespread anxiety for a debate as early as is practicable.

Mr. David Ennals: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer that we cannot have a debate on disarmament next week in view of the special session of the General Assembly and growing concern in Britain? Over 1 million people have signed a petition in support of disarmament and over 250,000 gathered in Hyde Park on Sunday to express the same view. Against that background, this is surely a matter of great urgency.

Mr. Biffen: No time is available for such a debate next week. I would mislead the right hon. Gentleman if I said that there was an early prospect of a debate. As I have said in response to the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish to consider his request that she make a statement on Monday about her attendance at the disarmament conference.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Why is it necessary, when parliamentary time is so limited, for the Government to stir up trouble on its Back Benches—[Interruption.]—by forcing through the ill-fated Northern Ireland Bill?

Mr. Biffen: The chorus that accompanied my hon. Friend's question leads me to think that there are at least two views on the matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that many months ago the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that her Department and the other Departments concerned with unemployment, including the Department of Industry, would keep their doors open to those concerned with the problem of unemployment? Is he aware that the Department of Industry is refusing to meet the representatives of Derbyshire county council, Chesterfield district council, Bolsover district council, the North-East Derbyshire district council and Amber Valley district council to discuss the removal of intermediate status from the area? Will he pass on that message and ensure that the representatives of the councils to which I have referred can have an opportunity to make their representations to the Department of Industry?

Mr. Biffen: I shall pass on that message.

Mr. John Stokes: I thank my right hon. Friend for not recalling the House during the Whitsun Recess for yet another statement on the Falkland Islands. However, may I ask him to think again about the question of the Middle East? I know that we have no force or power there, and that probably it is only force or power that will stop Israel, but surely this House, with its historic connections with Israel, Palestine and Jordan, should have a say next week on this vastly important question rather than on the comparatively trivial matter of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen: I should never describe Northern Ireland as a trivial matter. I take my hon. Friend's point, and perhaps he will allow my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) to stand as an answer to his question.

Falkland Islands

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): Since I reported to the House on 26 May, British forces have moved forward to positions surrounding Port Stanley, and are in firm control of high ground on an arc surrounding the town.
Earlier on 29 May, 2 Battalion the Parachute Regiment, supported by units from the Royal Marines, Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers, captured Darwin and Goose Green. This action, against a greatly superior force, was a remarkable feat and our forces displayed great determination, valour and fighting skill. At the same time, units of 3 Commando Brigade liberated the settlements at Teal and Douglas. While these actions were in progress, 5 Infantry Brigade came ashore without incident and the QE2, which carried them, is due back in Southampton tomorrow.
In order to move forward elements of 5 Infantry Brigade as rapidly as possible to the Port Stanley area, and given the appalling weather which was making the logistic problems difficult for helicopters, the force commander moved some forces with heavy stores and equipment around the coast by landing ships.
When the weather cleared on 8 June all but the last elements had moved forward successfully, but the sea movement coincided with better weather and the Argentines at this time renewed their air attacks on our forces. Our latest assessment is that during these attacks at least seven Argentine aircraft were destroyed and maybe another four making 11 in all.
One air attack was launched against two landing ships, "Sir Galahad" and "Sir Tristram". Both ships were hit. The "Sir Tristram' had virtually completed offloading and she was not severely damaged. The "Sir Galahad' had already started unloading but still had some men embarked.
Having consulted the military authorities, I am not prepared at this stage to give the total numbers of our casualties, and to do so could be of assistance to the enemy and put our men at greater risk. Meanwhile, next of kin are being informed and I shall give further information as soon as is reasonably possible.
In another incident Argentine aircraft attacked a small landing craft. Four Royal Marines and two Naval personnel were killed, and their next of kin are being informed. In this incident all four attacking Mirage aircraft were intercepted by our Sea Harriers and were shot down.
HMS "Plymouth" sustained an attack on the other side of East Falkland, in the Sound. Five Royal naval personnel were injured and their next of kin have been informed. The ship was damaged but she remains operational.
The losses that we have sustained in these incidents are tragic, and as soon as we can give further information to the families we shall do so. I should like to express my tribute to the bravery and skill of those who were involved in the rescue of our men, particularly the helicopter pilots and crews who, in extremely hazardous conditions, were responsible for saving a great many lives by removing men from the damaged ships.
I must tell the House that the task force commander's plans have not been prejudiced by these attacks and the losses of stores and equipment are already being made good from other stocks held ashore.

Mr. John Silkin: Despite the skill and valour of our forces, which is one of the bright spots in this continuing story, it is disturbing news that we have received from the Secretary of State. The Opposition wish to add their tribute to that of the Government and should like to send their sympathy to the relatives and friends of those who died and suffered in these attacks.
However, it is rather more than sympathy that we should be sending There is practical help that we can give. I should like the Secretary of State to tell us that the Ministry of Defence will resume the emergency telephone procedures that it had until recently, and perhaps improve on them. If one is at the other end of a telephone and is worried about one's next of kin in the Services, and one hears stories or rumours, it is important to be able to get on the telephone to talk to someone who is sympathetic, even if there is no news. May we have the Secretary of State's assurance that the relatives and friends of our forces in the Falklands will be saved that needless amount of anxiety?
Secondly, we owe the nation the feeling that we are doing everything possible to avoid needless danger to our forces. I am not probing any further than this, but, in the light of the renewed Argentine attacks, can the Secretary of State assure us and the nation that every possible opportunity is being made to re-assess our defensive equipment?
Thirdly, without prejudice to the task force commander's plan—I keep saying that this is no business of ours; it is his concern—can the Secretary of State reassure us that Britain will be willing to table a resolution at the United Nations so that diplomatic pressure can continue at the same time as military and economic pressures are being reinforced on Argentina?

Mr. Nott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I give him an absolute assurance that as soon as we can resume emergency telephone facilities for the families, we shall do so. I assure the House that the next of kin and the families of the men involved are of overriding concern to us. Where possible, we try to tell them before every announcement is made.
Our problem is that we have to counteract Argentine propaganda, which greatly exaggerates the successes that they have. We need to say something in answer to that. Where we can, we are as specific as possible about any units that have suffered damage as a result of an Argentine attack. However, I also have to give every consideration to the overriding operational value to the enemy of any information that we announce. That is why, I regret, I came to the decision, having consulted all the relevant military authorities, that I should not at this stage give our latest estimate of the numbers of casualties from the "Sir Galahad" and "Sir Tristram".
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must do nothing to put our men in needless danger. Clearly that is the principal concern of the task force commander. I am satisfied that he made the right decision to send round the final equipment and men in these landing ships. There are Harrier combat air patrols active the whole time and there are ships deployed—I cannot say more than that. I regret that some Argentine aircraft got through on this occasion. That may always be the case, however effective our air defence may be.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of a resolution at the United Nations. I have nothing to add to what she said then.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the Secretary of State think again about his first reply? I am asking him to arrange for someone to be at the end of a telephone who can say to a lonely and frightened relative or friend "I have no information for you at the moment, but please telephone again, whenever you like." That is all I am asking for—a sympathetic voice at the end of a telephone.

Mr. Nott: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Of course we shall do that. The families of the men in the Royal Navy live primarily in the Devonport and Portsmouth areas, where the Service authorities are in contact with them the whole time. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will agree with me that if I bring questions to a conclusion at about 4.15 pm in view of the statements from both Front Benches, that will be too long rather than too short.

Mr. John Peyton: As many of the casualties that have, unhappily, occurred have been my constituents, is my right hon. Friend aware that the commander and others at the Royal naval air station at Yeovil have carried out a very careful and understanding operation to let the next of kin know as soon as possible and to relieve everyone of anxiety where that has been possible?

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that all the units of the three Armed Services are pursuing the matter as sympathetically as they can.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Why were relatives advised on television last night not to attempt to telephone the usual numbers at the Ministry of Defence? Would it not be helpful for them to be able to hear a sympathetic voice? Does the Secretary of State agree that, whenever operational requirements permit, there are two reasons why information should be given as soon as possible? There is a need to ease the minds of relatives, and to counter Argentine propaganda.

Mr. Nott: Those are two reasons why we try to release information as soon as we can. When such an incident happens, men are rescued by helicopters and ships and they are dispersed around the fleet. They may even be taken to the many units on the mainland and it takes some time to retrieve the information, which is scattered in different places, in order to provide it to the next of kin. That is our problem, but within those contraints we inform the next of kin as soon as possible, and we shall continue to show the sympathetic consideration that the House wishes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: With considerable candour the Secretary of State said that, of course, aircraft will always get through. In those circumstances, are we not slipping into a British Vietnam in the South Atlantic, and before we go any further into the mire should not the task force be withdrawn?

Mr. Nott: With few exceptions, the House believes that the dispatch of the task force, the manner in which our

forces were landed on the Falkland Islands and our successes since they arrived have been remarkable. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, any analogy with Vietnam is entirely false. There has been a series of major victories, with some setbacks. I have told the House about those setbacks when they have occurred, but our forces have been magnificent and will go forward to another victory soon.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Although I recognise that there will always be times when my right hon. Friend cannot give the House the information that he might wish—this is undoubtedly one such occasion—can he reassure the House about a matter that is certainly in the minds of every hon. Member and of people outside, namely, that our ships and the gallant men who serve in them are receiving every protection possible, whether at sea, in the air, or on land, from early warning radar systems?

Mr. Nott: Our two aircraft carriers and every ship in the fleet have the most modern radar and communications systems. One element that we lack in the task force, because we are operating from 8,000 miles and outside the reach of a land base, is an airborne early warning system. We are giving urgent consideration to how we can create one. Apart from that, the radar and communications systems of the fleet, together with the Harriers, have worked magnificently. The record of the Harriers in shooting down Argentine aircraft has been outstanding. they would not have intercepted those aircraft had not the radar arrangements been working well.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: On behalf of my party, I express our sympathy to the relatives of the casualties. I am sure that every hon. Member knows that, whether casualties are large or small, even one casualty is a tragic loss to a family. Can we not take comfort from the fact that until now in the operation losses have been much less than could have been conceived when the operation was started? At such a time, when losses may be greater than they have been until now, should we not steel ourselves to carry through our resolve in what we believe to be a righteous cause in the full knowledge, that, whatever the losses, failure to do so would bring much greater losses to Britain?

Mr. Nott: Most hon. Members share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I agree with everything that he said. Every soldier, sailor and airman that we lose is a tragedy, not just to his family, but to everyone. With 25,000 people involved in the task force, and with well over 100 ships there, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is remarkable that we have not had more casualties and sustained greater losses. We have been remarkably successful, but of course nothing will bring back lost lives.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Although the House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about keeping families informed, the reality is that much worry stems from media speculation and partial reporting of incidents. Although I appreciate that considerable problems are attached to the matter, can my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter to see whether the present availability of news can be improved?

Mr. Nott: We are criticised both for giving too much information and for giving too little. Every hour of every day we must make a decision on whether to release


information. The maximum amount of information is, rightly, required by the British public and we are not withholding any information that does not damage the operational objectives of the task force and that is not upsetting to the families. However, the more information that we can give, the better.
There have been some misunderstandings in the task force. The suggestion has been made that my Department has released information that will damage our forces on the ground. I have carefully checked every such suggestion and I can find no evidence that any damaging information has been given by the Ministry of Defence. What has sometimes happened is that reports have been based on speculation here at home rather than on actual information.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how he could say in his opening statement that the losses that had been suffered would not alter the plan of campaign and yet go on to say that, for operational reasons, the information to which the House and the country were entitled would not be forthcoming? Some of us will not be satisfied and will be worried about what appears to be an unnecessary retention of information.

Mr. Nott: I am conscious of the fact that day by day we are criticised for giving too much or too little information. The criticism comes from different quarters, and sometimes from the same quarter but from different directions. However, no one is entitled to information that puts any life at risk. In making that difficult judgment in each case, it is right that we should rely largely upon the advice that we receive from the operational commanders on the spot. In the last resort they are the people best able to judge whether information is likely to be damaging to their actions.

Mr. Terence Higgins: As the Leader of the Opposition seems to distinguish between unconditional surrender of the Argentine forces, which he is against, and our forcing them to withdraw from the islands, of which apparently he is in favour, can my right hon. Friend confirm that our military objective is to remove the Argentine invader from the Falkland Islands—no more and no less?

Mr. Nott: Yes, I can confirm that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Can the Minister inform the House of the number of casualties among Falkland Islanders, men, women and children? How many are concentrated in the Port Stanley area? Was not the objective the liberation of the islanders, not their annihilation? To avoid their death or wounding, will the right hon. Gentleman now do what our Front Bench has asked and resume negotiations at the United Nations?

Mr. Nott: With regard to casualties among the islanders, we are doing everything that we can through the force commander on the spot to keep these to an absolute minimum. We are in constant contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross to see whether we can find some means whereby islanders who may be in a difficult situation in the town can, with Red Cross assistance, be brought out. The Red Cross is working with us on this. So far we had not had a satisfactory response from the Argentines. Our concern for the islanders is very great, and we share that concern with the hon. Gentleman.
I have already commented on the United Nations. Our objective in the short term is the removal of the Argentines from the Falkland Islands. There is nothing more that the United Nations can do to bring that about. It can be brought about only by British forces on the ground. We have given every opportunity to the Argentines to withdraw. They have turned down every chance, and we must now remove them by force.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the entire Government be mindful of the reported words of a Royal Marine colour sergeant in the task force, that since the Falkland Islands are worth dying for they are worth keeping?

Mr. Nott: I noted that remark by one of our men, a Royal Marine commando. I am sure the vast majority of the House share his views.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in offering sympathy and condolences to a family in my constituency on the death of Sapper Prabeen Gandhi? Does he recall that during the passage of the British Nationality Bill 1981 many voices behind him cast doubt upon patriotism and the nature of our multiracial society? Will he therefore make it clear that some of the first deaths, certainly in relation to my constituency, were of members of the Indian ethnic minority?

Mr. Nott: I know of no one on my side of the House who would feel anything but praise for the ethnic minorities. I may not have got quite the right phrase, but I am thinking, for example, of the Hong Kong Chinese, the Indians and, indeed, all those serving with the task force many as members of the Merchant Marine. They have done a magnificent job. Their patriotism is not in doubt. Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in offering condolences to Sapper Gandhi's family.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Without casting any reflection on the professional skill and, indeed, bravery of the British press men in the Falklands, may I ask the Secretary of State to examine the way in which their personal dispatches are issued? Can he tell us whether there is any monitoring of these reports before dispatch, bearing in mind that often, inadvertently I am sure, targeting information is given to the Argentines, such as the location of a damaged British Royal naval vessel today?

Mr. Nott: The reports coming from the journalists in the Falkland Islands have, generally speaking, been magnificent. They have been vivid and have given the country much information, which has been of great value to us. I have nothing but praise for what the journalists there have done.
All the journalists' dispatches are looked at on the ground down there. Of course, the lives of the journalists themselves are involved. We do not seek to censor or change their dispatches here. Sometimes we hold them back if we feel that a dispatch has slipped through inadvertently, perhaps in the heat of the battle when no one has had proper time to look at it. We have held back some for a day or two because we felt that it would be wrong for them to go out. We have done that in co-operation and agreement with the press and the newspaper or television company concerned. Generally speaking, the journalists


have done a magnificent job. Of course, we are vigilant to ensure that no information is released through them that would damage our forces.

Middle East

Mr. Speaker: I have received three applications to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). all three deal with the same subject, the Middle East. I propose to take the first one and to give my ruling on that because there is no point in the same application being made three times.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
the invasion of the Lebanon by Israeli forces and the threatened occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut".
That the matter is specific is beyond doubt. Israeli regular armed forces have advanced between 40 and 20 miles into the Lebanon. They are now attempting to encircle Beirut and have stated that they intend to occupy it.
The matter is important for the following reasons. First, the Lebanon is an independent sovereign State, a member of the United Nations, and is entitled to the protection of its territory and unity, as are all other members. Secondly, there has been a unanimous Security Council resolution requiring the withdrawal of Israeli forces, which Israel has so far disregarded. Thirdly, there is the question of human suffering and the massacre of mothers and babies, boys and girls. The figure has already been put at 8,000, and the killing and murder go on. Fourthly, and of fundamental importance, the principle of collective security and United Nations peacekeeping is at stake. If no action is taken to uphold the rule of law, the consequences for international peace not only in the Middle East but in the world at large are terrifying.
The matter is urgent for the following reasons. Not only does the fighting involve Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian people, but the Syrian forces have been drawn into the conflict. It is reported today that forces may also be sent from Iran. The Saudi Foreign Minister has flown to Bonn to talk personally to President Reagan, and the American Secretary of State, Mr. Haig, has gone to Jerusalem for direct talks with the Israeli Government. The Ministers of Western Europe have discussed the matter urgently and are talking in terms of economic sanctions.
In the light of these considerations the House ought as a matter of the greatest urgency to discuss this conflict, which could have most fatal implications not only for peace in the Middle East but for the world at large.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning, as I indicated, as did two other hon. Gentlemen whom I have identified by constituency, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the invasion of the Lebannon by Israeli forces and the threatened occupation of the Lebanese capital, Beirut".
The House listened, as I did, with deep and anxious concern to what the hon. Gentleman said. The House knows that my powers are strictly limited in this matter. I am directed to take account of the several factors set out


in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that the hon.

Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

DEMOCRATIC AMNESTY AND UNFAIR PENALTIES (REPAYMENT)

Mr. Ernie Ross, supported by Mr. William McKelvey, Miss Joan Maynard, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. R. McTaggart, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Reg Race, Mr. Stan Thorne and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to introduce an amnesty for those who in the discharge of their democratic responsibilities as citizens have suffered punishment in the courts and the imposition of fines under legislation introduced since May 1979 for offences in connection with the work of elected councillors, trade unions and members of trade unions and for the repayment of moneys paid in such fines where the offence committed was not an offence prior to that date: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 139].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — National Health Service Pay

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Health Service workers have been offered a totally inadequate increase in their wages, on the basis that this Government believe the lowest paid should be the worst treated; and condemns the Secretary of State for his refusal to refer this dispute to ACAS in the interests of both patients and Health Service workers.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Any debate on National Health Service pay must take account of one or two basic facts. No one enters the National Health Service to make a fortune. If one wants to make money, almost any other profession is preferable. I assure the House that there are no newsletters circulating with advice on the high rates of pay, the good hours and acceptable perks of the jobs available to technicians, porters, nurses or midwives. No recruiting agencies publish glowing advertisements on the conditions of work and marvellous surroundings. If they did, the Trade Descriptions Act would compel them to say something like "Jobs available in low-paid posts with very long hours in largely substandard buildings, with routine overtime and awkward shift work. Apply to the Minister for Health, who will undoubtedly pay you less than the poverty line and lecture you on the need to be responsible."
The appalling truth is that the Government have precipitated the industrial action in the National Health Service. During the general election the Conservative Party made great play of its commitment to free collective bargaining and the right of workers to negotiate the rate for the job. The reality for public sector workers has been different. National Health Service workers have suffered a direct attack on their standard of living since the Government came to office. Unlike other groups in the public service, they have not received even the catching-up rate that could enable them to keep pace with inflation.
It is salutary to examine the history of the present dispute. The Labour Government, who made mistakes on pay, were concerned with the problems of the widening gap in pay between National Health Service workers and other professions. They set up the Clegg commission at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on 7 March 1979, with the express remit:
to examine the terms and conditions of employment … in agreement with the employers and unions concerned, and to report in each case on the possibility of establishing acceptable bases of comparison, including comparisons with terms and conditions for other comparable work, and of maintaining appropriate internal relativities."—[Official Report, 7 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 1252.]
Because the commission was asked to report by 1 August 1979, there is no doubt that it did not have the opportunity to produce a perfect scheme. Nevertheless, it concluded that there were workable methods of examining


National Health Service pay in relation to outside analogues. Given time, it is obvious that one could now produce machinery that would be sensitive enough to produce a number of realistic comparisons.
The Clegg commission also recommended a catching-up exercise on behalf of the nurses, which was equal to 19·6 per cent. over two years. However, when the Government came to office, almost their first action was to destroy the Clegg commission and to remove any remaining external links with outside wage rates. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has been extra-ordinarily ambivalent even about the role of the Whitley councils as a means of negotiating pay. He announced that they were independent bodies, but he made it clear that, when it suited him, he intended to intervene directly in pay bargaining by insisting that National Health Service pay should be contained within the Treasury's limit of 4 per cent.
Although the Secretary of State subsequently announced that a further £81·9 million would be available to be divided unequally between various groups of workers, by ruthlessly using the cash limits that he has imposed, he has ensured that National Health Service pay awards have been lower than those to other public sector workers. Although the Secretary of State has paid lip service to the need for long-term arrangements for pay, he has made little real attempt to offer comparable terms in the interim. He has appeared to be waiting for the outcome of the Megaw report on Civil Service pay.
Listening to the Minister of State this morning on the radio, I thought that he was wrong to imply that the trade unions in the National Health Service were deliberately dragging their feet in seeking the means for setting up the machinery. He knows that that is definitely not true and that, ever since the setting up of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, they have been seeking to find suitable machinery. He should not in any way imply that that is not so.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Will the hon. Lady explain why, when my hon. and learned Friend's predecessor as Minister for Health wrote in August 1980 offering discussions on the long term, it took over 12 months for a response to come from the unions? That was the point that my hon. and learned Friend was making. We need a reply from the hon. Lady on that matter.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State knows that he, and no one else, was responsible for that delay. The delegation from the TUC that saw the Prime Minister agreed that it would take time to find suitable machinery, so the right hon. Gentleman must not persist in trying to mislead the House in that absurd way.
The difference in treatment between National Health Service workers and other public sector workers is noticeable. Both the police and the fire services have proved conclusively that indexation of pay does not automatically mean a restriction on the number of jobs available. The TUC health committee responded positively to a means of setting up new machinery, and it has been seeking urgently to proceed with that work.
However, I must make it clear to the House that the setting up of the machinery cannot in any way be regarded as an alternative to a proper pay increase this year. Even if some suitable formula is found and the Government are

sufficiently realistic to agree on suitable machinery, it is obvious that, in the first year of its implementation, a considerable sum will be required to bring existing wage rates in the National Health Service up to a reasonable level.
There is no doubt that pay in the National Health Service is at a completely different level from that of other comparable jobs. Sometimes there is a complete misunderstanding of the wage rates that are received by those who work day in, day out, in the National Health Service. There are 270,000 ancillary staff, 70 per cent. of whom are women and 50 per cent. of whom work part-time only. They have been offered 4 per cent., although the Government admit that 63·9 per cent. earn £80 or less in gross earnings and only 19·5 per cent. earn more than £100 per week. Their last pay rise was in December 1980, when they were awarded 7·5 per cent. to run for 15 months.
I shall consider some of the other people whom the Secretary of State: mentions rarely when talking about the National Health Service. Ambulance men are vital Health Service workers. They have been offered 4 per cent., with an extra 1 per cent. for a salary change that was agreed in their pay round last year. Many of those men and women do a dirty, dangerous and largely unappreciated job. For an average week of 46 hours they receive £128 compared with the police who receive £171·60 for a 39-hour week and firemen who receive £137·80. The much maligned administrative staff, about whom the Conservative Party always seems to be complaining, who face considerable job losses not only because of reorganisation but because of deliberate Government policy, earn in the clerical grades the magnificent sum of £88·50 while their opposite numbers in the Civil Service earn £94. A similar comparison holds good for senior administrators.
It is not only those groups of workers but the professional, scientific and technical grades, for whom the attempt to restrict the wage bill to an increase of 4 per cent. has produced some extraordinary anomalies, are already suffering from acute staff shortages. The pay in the National Health Service is considerably lower than for equivalent jobs outside. Scientists can earn £188·10 in industry, whereas radiographers earn £99·70 after long, professional training. Those comparisons can be repeated right across the professional and scientific grades of the National Health Service. Some of the workers in those grades will receive absolutely nothing if the Government adhere to the 4 per cent. rate.
The shocking thing about the Government's attitude towards the joint pay claim—the first that has ever been submitted by all the Health Service unions for a common core claim—has been the deliberate attempt by the Secretary of State to divide one section of the Health Service from another. I refer specifically to the attempt to suggest that the nursing profession was acting responsibly by refusing to take any kind of strike action while somehow or other implying that the Health Service unions did not have the same attitude to patients or the same strength of feeling for the National Health Service. I deplore the need to take industrial action. I believe strongly that, had the Secretary of State responded to the initial overtures from the TUC health committee, the position need not have deteriorated to the point where industrial action has been taken.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the hon. Lady advocating that the various unions in the National Health Service should join and become a single union, thereby presenting a common front, or does the Labour Party continue to seek separate divisions?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) has not extended to me the elementary courtesy of listening to what I am saying. It is the first time that there has been a common core claim with all the unions working together and realising that, even with the differentials that exist between one union and another, they can nevertheless combine in a demand for a 12 per cent. increase and work closely together in the pay negotiations. That has been a remarkable development.
Everyone who works in the National Health Service wishes desperately not to damage the patients' interests. That is why the TUC health committee issued its code of conduct and yesterday rejected the call for an all-out strike. The Secretary of State may like to pay tribute to the TUC health committee and to all the unions, not try to suggest somehow that one group of Health Service workers is worried about the impact of industrial action on patients and another group is not. That is not true and he knows it.
Throughout the dispute, the TUC health committee has sought to behave in a responsible manner. It is extremely important that the Government should respond.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Lady has used a rather ambiguous phrase. She said that she deplored the need for industrial action. Does she support the present industrial action?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is clear that if people whose entire lives are spent caring for the sick and in some cases for the mentally ill and handicapped, are forced into taking industrial action, they have been driven almost to the point of desperation. I do not in any way agree that they should be forced into that position. I am extremely sorry that the Government have not made some effort to produce the machinery that would obviate any such move. That has been obvious from the beginning.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has been deliberately procrastinating in the hope that the ballot of the Royal College of Nursing would show acceptance of the 6.4 per cent. offer and that he could then use that to drive a wedge between the Royal College of Nursing and the other unions. The Government and the Secretary of State reckoned without the fact that nurses can do arithmetic. Any Government who pretend that they are giving them a special increase should explain why they simultaneously allow their lodging charges and national insurance charges to rise.
It is ironic that the same Government who refuse to give nurses a pay increase in line with outside jobs are, nevertheless, insisting on increasing their rents in line with the Secretary of State for the Environment's £2·50 tax on council houses. The Royal College of Nursing, in spite of what the Minister hoped, actually voted decisively to refect the offer. The nurses and midwives side of the Whitley council supported the unanimous rejection of the 6·4 per cent. offer.
The stage has now been reached where the full staff side of the Whitley council, acting unanimously, has rejected the insultingly low increase. It made clear to the management that it required not a realistic, but a fair and

just offer. The Secretary of State cannot seriously imagine that, by boasting of the number of extra jobs that he has created in the National Health Service, he has somehow convinced the workers that they must accept a future of low-paid jobs and imposed pay settlements. Not even the most sophisticated rearrangement of pay statistics to prove an illusory 76 per cent. increase since May 1979—a calculation that can be reached only if pay settlements entered into by the previous Government in April 1978 are included—will convince those who have to deal with the effect of low pay that they are being properly treated. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Government—elected on a platform of free collective bargaining—abitrarily to impose an incomes policy on one of the lowest paid sectors in the public service.
By contrast with the police, the fire service, the water workers, or, even more strikingly, senior judges, NHS workers have been offered a derisory amount. Compared with civil servants—badly treated though they have been—NHS workers have been offered a smaller percentage. Meanwhile, this Janus-faced Secretary of State, like some Victorian ironmaster lecturing the poor on their duty, has sought to exploit the real sense of responsibility of National Health Service workers at all levels.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I must say that I admire her splendid rhetoric. Having shared a platform with the hon. Lady on the subject of nurses' pay, on which she did so well, I know that she will appreciate that it is not a new problem that we face. Nurses concede that their pay has increased by 44 per cent. since the Government came to power. The problem is that they were exceptionally badly paid in May 1979. Would she care to enlarge on that point?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) conveniently forgets that the whole purpose of the Clegg commission was to provide a catching-up increase for low-paid NHS workers and to set in train machinery—that is the important part of Clegg—that would allow comparable pay rates to be established without all this constant bother. The Secretary of State's first action on taking office was to destroy that machinery.
It is essential to the lives of all of us that the Health Service should provide the highest possible level of health care, and those who, day in, day out, week in, week out, often in depressingly inadequate premises, provide that care, are entitled to decent rates of pay and to expect our support and admiration. Most workers in the NHS realise that this may be our last chance to stop the slide of the Health Service into the slough of despond, where it will remain an under-funded, over-stretched repository of low-paid workers and under-privileged patients.
The Secretary of State should stop being so appallingly pig-headed and avail himself of the good offices of ACAS. He should immediately seek assistance from ACAS and reach an equitable and urgent solution of this problem. His intransigence is not in the interests of the patients. If he is seriously concerned about patients' welfare, he will not want industrial action to continue.
The Government have the remedy in their own hands, if only they will respond. Health Service workers are not, in spite of what the Government have sought to convey, the natural material from which militants are made. Only their very real desperation has driven them to this atypical


response. Let the Minister today announce that he accepts that they have an unanswerable case for an increase that is at least commensurate with the rate of inflation. Let him acknowledge his responsibility and put the Health Service back to work in the way that everyone desires. That is what the patients want, that is what the workers seek, and that is what the House has the right to demand.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House deplores any industrial action in the National Health Service especially that which puts at risk the health and safety of patients; notes that present offers will give increases of over six per cent. to about half the work force in a service which enjoys secure and growing employment; and urges the trade unions to reconsider their position before taking any further action which could damage the National Health Service and the patients it serves.".
I had hoped that there was one thing on which we could agree, because the Government deplore not only the need for industrial action, but industrial action itself within the National Health Service. Having listened to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), I see that the position taken by the Opposition Front Bench is still remarkably equivocal in that regard. We must be clear on the matter. Industrial action in the Health Service is potentially dangerous. It puts patients' lives at risk. The distinction that is drawn between emergency and non-emergency is often, in practice, a distinction that it is impossible to make. A patient who is referred by his doctor to a specialist may well need urgent attention.
The prospect of pickets turning back ambulances bringing what the pickets regard as non-emergency patients to hospitals is repugnant—just as it is intolerable that anyone who is not professionally qualified should attempt to decide who does or does not need urgent treatment. Certainly I should not seek to make that kind of judgment.
Even worse, regrettably there have been reports of instances where emergency cover has simply not been provided. On Tuesday, for example, 18 ambulance stations in Northumbria went on strike. The emergency service was left to the police and voluntary ambulance services to provide as best they could. We were, of course, ready to support them with military ambulances if this had been required—in the event it was not—but even then the absence of trained and fully equipped ambulance men would have exposed the public to unnecessary risk. That is the reality of industrial action in the Health Service.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Fowler: Perhaps I might continue for a moment, and then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Lady.
In 1979 the then Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), said:
I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else who works in the Service."—[Official Report, 1 February 1979; Vol. 961, c. 1684.]
He also said:
I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will not support the withdrawal of emergency services."—[Official Report, 18 January 1979; Vol. 960, c. 1955.]
I hope that that remains the view of the Opposition. I now give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. We do not support the removal of emergency services. However, in citing a specific case the Secretary of State might have made an effort to explain exactly what happened with that group of ambulance men and exactly who exacerbated the situation to the point at which they went out.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady keeps making the point—sometimes one sees it, and sometimes it disappears, but it has to be made clear to the hon. Lady—that industrial action in the NHS does cause and has caused, damage
In this dispute we have seen Mrs. Castle, the predecessor of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North, indefensibly appearing on a picket line in support of industrial action which, when she was in office, she unequivocally condemned. I hope that that does not represent the new position of the Labour Party, and that by the end of this debate we will hear from the Opposition Front Bench just what its attitude is, in plain words that the public can understand.

Mr. Reg Race: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the withdrawal of emergency service cover in Northumbria and elsewhere in other industrial disputes, does he not realise that when ambulance men informed their local health authority that they were to take limited industrial action, while providing emergency cover, some managements told them that they would all be sent home if they went on strike at all? Therefore the management is responsible for the removal of emergency cover.

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept for one moment what the hon. Gentleman says. If people withdraw emergency cover, which is a deliberate act, certain consequences must flow from it. If the hon. Gentleman wants further examples of where that has happened, I shall be glad to ask my hon. and learned Friend to give them.
I pay tribute, as the hon. Lady asked me to do, to the many thousands of people who have continued working in the Health Service—nurses and doctors, and many others who, as the hon. Lady said, are continuing to care for patients. They, I believe, are the people in the Heath Service who are rightly attracting the support and sympathy of the public. They are the people with whom the Government are most concerned to deal fairly.
Since this dispute started I have reported to the House on two occasions. There are, some further developments which I should like to set out a little later. I should like to start with what I hope will be an agreed basis.
The National Health Service has a budget of over £12 billion a year. This is higher, both in cash and in real terms, than it has ever been in the history of the National Health Service. By the end of this financial year provision is expected to be 6 per cent. in real terms over the level of services in 1979. We are therefore not dealing with a service which has been cut, but one which has been deliberately increased, and increased against the background of world recession. The result has been new hospitals; new wards; waiting lists down, and perhaps most important for some people a 47,000 increase in whole-time equivalent staff. The biggest increase has been in staff providing direct patient care.
Self-evidently, the National Health Service is a labour-intensive service. A 1 per cent. increase in pay costs about


£65 million. In England the pay bill is now about £6½ billion. The pay bill for nurses and midwives is over £2½ billion. That money has been used to provide, first, more pay—pay, on average, has in fact increased by 60 per cent. since 1979—and second, more staff. Nursing and midwifery staff have increased by about 34,000 during the past three years. The result is that the pay bill itself has increased by 80 per cent. since 1979.
There is no staff group inside the Health Service that has not increased—including significant increases in administrative, clerical and works staff. Clearly, there is an obligation on the Government to secure the greatest possible efficiency of this service, and that is what we are determined to do.
What these figures demonstrate is that there is a choice for the Government and a choice for the taxpayer. The National Health Service has a budget. By any standards that budget is massive. If, as this Government have done, we add new resources and increase the budget even further, we have to choose where those resources go. If all our extra resources go on pay to existing staff, there will not be the resources for new services. It is simply not possible to provide massive new pay offers plus new hospitals and wards, and plus new staff. We have to make a choice.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Minister confirm that, in real terms, nurses pay is 80 per cent. lower than in 1974.

Mr. Fowler: I am coming to the details of nurses' pay. Over the past three years the average pay for nurses and midwives has increased by—

Mr. Roland Moyle: What about Clegg?

Mr. Fowler: Of course it includes Clegg, because the Government financed Clegg.

Mr. Moyle: We set up Clegg.

Mr. Fowler: It may seem extraordinary, but the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government, and even he must accept that pay increases have to be financed.

Mr. David Ennals: rose—

Mr. Fowler: Those who argue for a 12 per cent. pay increase must say where the money is to come from. Even before that we must be clear that the 12 per cent. pay increase is only one part of the total bill that the Health Service unions are putting to the taxpayer.

Mr. Race: rose—

Mr. Fowler: I shall give way in a moment to one or other of the hon. Members. Perhaps they will fight it out between them. I must make some progress.
When we take into account the other improvements that are demanded by the trade unions—longer holidays and reduced hours—all told the value of the demands is 20 per cent. The Government's current offer will cost £320 million. The unions are claiming an extra £700 million. That is the size of the increase about which we are talking. I do not believe that anyone seriously thinks that we can provide that kind of money out of the resources of the Health Service.

Mr. Ennals: Is the Minister now taking credit for the Clegg award? The Clegg Commission was set up by the

Labour Government. It was agreed that the awards would be accepted. The first action by the present Government was to abolish the Clegg Commission. Is the Minister now taking credit for the awards that were granted by the Clegg Commission?

Mr. Fowler: The Government provided the resources for it. If the right hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall quote what the former Chief Secretary said about his behaviour at that time. As a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that, above all, the Government have to provide the resources in these situations. The Government are entitled to take credit for providing the resources.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Secretary of State lost the thread of his earlier remarks—no doubt because of the interventions by my hon. Friends—and did not finish his sentence. Will he make clear what percentage increase in National Health Service pay the Government claim has taken place during the past three years?

Mr. Fowler: The pay bill for nurses and midwives has increased by 80 per cent. That is partly made up of pay and partly by increased staff. That is the figure that I have just given. The pay increase within that amount is 60 per cent.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is not the real nub of the problem that when my right hon. Friend and his predecessors came to power in the Department of Health and Social Security they found that there was no control over the number of staff in the Health Service? The seventeenth report of the Public Accounts Committee gives that as the situation. Moreover, the increase for the nurses over the period 1971 to 1979 was 24·6 per cent., whereas for technical ancillary staff it was 47·4 per cent. and for administrative ancillary staff it was 45 per cent. That is the nub of the problem inherited by my right hon. Friend to which an answer must be found in the months ahead.

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those are the points that the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government, was making in referring to a previous Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North in his book "Inside the Treasury". The right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton wrote:
He had a case, not one with which I necessarily agreed, because I felt there was substantial overmanning amongst Health Service ancillary workers who, through strike action, had won a clearly excessive settlement.
That is the point that my hon. Friend was making.
Basically, what this amounts to is a call to increase the contribution made by the taxpayer. Here we come to a crucial issue. The National Health Service is not an island. It is not divorced from the rest of the economy, and it never can be. It can expand only in so far as resources are available to allow expansion to take place. It relies on the wealth creation of industry, and the health of industry relies on us getting inflation down and keeping it down. It would be madness at this point to turn our backs on the successes that we have achieved there—madness for industry and madness for the National Health Service. Therefore I repeat that the 12 per cent. claim—or, to be more accurate, the 20 per cent. claim—that has been put forward is totally unrealistic.
Let us be clear on what has actually been offered. Since the 4 per cent. pay factor for the public sector was first announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last December, an additional £82 million has been made available to increase the pay offers for specific groups within the NHS responsible for the direct treatment of patients and a further £22 million to finance the Government's decision on the report of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. As a result, more than half the total work force are being offered more than 4 per cent. Nursing and midwifery staff, the largest group, have been offered increases averaging 6·4 per cent.
A similar offer has been made to the professions supplementary to medicine. The doctors and dentists have been offered increases of about 6 per cent. on average. Ambulance men have been offered 5 per cent. as part of a settlement which would include the introduction of a salaried structure. Overall, on the present offers the paybill would increase by about 5·5 per cent.
Other groups, such as the Civil Service—this is a fair comparison—have received increases for individuals of 5·9 per cent., but they have had to live within the 4 per cent. pay factor. The difference will have to be made up by savings in administration, notably a reduction in the number of staff. That is in direct contrast to what is happening in the National Health Service.
It is true that substantial numbers of staff are still being offered 4 per cent., and some of those staff are relatively low paid. I do not seek to dispute that fact, but there are also two important points to be made.
First, I make no apology for seeking to make some distinction between groups on grounds of recruitment, the degree of skill, qualification and training required. That is why we have offered more to nurses and midwives than to some other groups of staff, and I believe that that is supported by the public generally.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On which point has my right hon. Friend put the physiotherapists, who are also highly trained and refrain from striking?

Mr. Fowler: They are also offered 6·4 per cent., are included in the professions supplementary to medicine and are at the top of the list.
Secondly, many of the figures—the hon. Lady put forward her own figures—are quite misleading. One that has been used is the figure of £82 a week and the so-called poverty line. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, £82 a week is the level of family income supplement payable to a married couple with two children.
The real comparison should be, not with the basic rate, but with earnings. Average male ancillary earnings are £104 a week, and average full-time female ancillary earnings are £84 a week. That compares with a private sector average of £74. Nor are those differences largely accounted for by excessive overtime. The average for the male ancillary worker is 5½ hours a week, and the full-time female ancillary worker does less than 1½ hours overtime on average.
This dispute is between a Government who have increased expenditure on the Health Service, provided secure and increasing employment for the staff and have offered about half the work force more than 6 per cent., which will cost about £320 million this year, and trade unions which have made a claim that will cost another £700 million.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it would not be right simply to leave it at that. I am sure that the House will share my desire to do everything possible to try to bring this dispute to an end, but this must be done within the resources available.
Because of our desire to make progress, and also because of the key role of nurses in maintaining patient care—[Interruption.] I want to make two points, and I advise hon. Members not to jump to too many hasty conclusions—I responded immediately to the request by the leaders of the Royal College of Nursing to see me following the ballot of their membership. We had a constructive discussion and it is clear that the Government and the Royal College are close together on a number of points. In particular, we both want to see a new permanent arrangement for determining pay introduced next year. We agree that we want progress on this as quickly as possible, and the first meeting on the subject took place today under the chairmanship of the Minister for Health.
I repeat to the hon. Lady that any delay that has taken place is in no way the responsibility of the Government. If the hon. Lady checks the letters and the facts she will see that the Minister for Health wrote on 28 August 1980 and did not receive a reply from the staff side until 12 August 1981. That was the first reply. Those are the facts, and I hope that the hon. Lady will not pursue her point, which is wrong and totally dud.
We also agree with the Royal College argument that settlements between now and the longer-term arrangements should continue to recognise the special position of its members, who have not taken industrial action. We have already recognised that special position in the 6·4 per cent. offer that we have made. Obviously the Royal College wants to see that offer improved, and it puts its case strongly on that point. At this stage the problem is that we must find the money from the resources available. That problem still remains. None the less, we had a helpful discussion. I promised to consider all the different points that the Royal College made, and I have asked its representatives to have a further meeting with me, I hope next week.
There is much common ground between the Government, the Royal College of Nursing and its members. We admire and respect their dedication to patient care, and it was on that base of common ground that the meeting took place.
I very much regret that at present no such common ground appears to exist between the Government and the Health Service unions affiliated to the TUC. They are committed to a continuing campaign of industrial action which puts patient care at risk, and that fact must constitute a barrier between us.
It appears that the Opposition would turn to a third party—they mention ACAS—to arbitrate in these circumstances between the Government and the Health Service unions. As I said before, that is a course that I reject. The essential issues in this dispute are how much the nation can afford to spend on the Health Service and how, within that total, the money is to be distributed. Those decisions cannot be contracted out to anybody outside the Government, and certainly not to a forum of the kind with which we are all familiar, in which the arbitrator or conciliator sets out to fix it and ends up splitting the difference. I have given the House the figures, and I do not believe that that is the way forward.
The health services committee of the TUC has now indicated that it, too, would like to see me. It said so in the statement that it issued after its meeting last night. I should welcome such a meeting, provided I thought that we could, as I and the Royal College did, proceed from some common ground.
In the light of the various reports of the TUC health services committee meeting yesterday, it is anything but clear that there is yet sufficient common ground to make such a meeting worth while. But it is very much the Government's wish that there should be such a meeting, so that without misunderstanding, and with a realistic recognition of what can be afforded, we can bring this dispute to an end.
It was with that in mind, and with a view to removing any misunderstandings and finding common ground, that earlier this week I asked Mr. Pat Lowry, the chairman of ACAS, to act as an intermediary and go-between. Mr. Lowry has agreed to do this in a personal and private capacity as a channel of communication acceptable to both sides. Whether his explorations will prove fruitful remains to be seen. We are grateful to him for agreeing to do this job, which he is just starting, but I owe it to him and the House to make his position clear. It will not be his responsibility to make proposals, still less to make offers. These matters must ultimately be settled by the Government.
It may be that no progress can be made. I should regret it if that were the case. But if his explorations succeeded in finding common ground for useful discussions between the Government and the representatives of the other unions which would enable us to end this dispute, no one would be better pleased than I. However, I am bound to warn that the present claims made by the trade unions, and their actions, are a substantial barrier.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I warmly welcome what the Minister has just announced. However, as one who owes his life to the National Health Service I beg him to understand the feelings, as I have discovered from being in hospital, of the Royal College of Nursing and nurses in general. I could have predicted the outcome of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman's information is not very clever if he expected them to vote in favour of the pay offer.
The right hon. Gentleman must not split the Royal College and the other health unions. If the role of ACAS, or, rather, of Mr. Lowry, is to prevent that, I warmly support it. I marched with the unions in my home town of Newport yesterday, because they have a strong case. They do not wish to be on strike. I am sure that the Minister can bring them together if he acts in the proposed way.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. No purpose is served by driving a wedge between the two. That was the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point. I hope—I do not want to raise false hopes—that matters will proceed from that.
The amendment makes three points. First, it deplores the industrial action that puts at risk the health and safety of patients. No one should be in any doubt that that is the result of industrial action in the National Health Service. Secondly, it points both to what has been offered in pay and to the increased employment within the Health Service. That circumstance is exceptional in both the public and the private sector. Thirdly, and most

importantly, it asks the unions to reconsider their position before taking further action that could damage the NHS and, above all, damage the patients whom the service is there to care for. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I declare an interest. I am a Member sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees which is one of the unions that are taking industrial action. I have also been a Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security. I nearly did not bother to declare my interest, as when the Secretary of State answered a question last week he was good enough to declare my interest for me. This is his kind way of admitting indirectly that no matter how long he holds his high office I am more likely to know more about both sides of the problem than he ever will. Added to that is the fact that I spent 10 years practising industrial relations before I came to the House. Moreover, my family and I make full use of the Healh Service. We have no private health insurance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can say the same.
I admired the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) put the case on behalf of the Opposition. It was first class. I have been through fire on this subject as the Government of which I was proud to be a member ended up on a head-on collision with the union of which I am also proud to be a member. As a result, I have thought a great deal about the problem before the House.
I should like to give the Secretary of State the benefit of my advice. It is simple. If he feels that, as a result of his losing face, he cannot increase an across-the-board offer to all workers in the NHS, he should take the advice of the TUC health services committee and refer the matter to ACAS. ACAS could then discover a special scheme of arbitration that will cover the current problem and settle it. The right hon. Gentleman told us of one or two steps in that direction, but they are not enough. We want a full-blooded commitment to arbitration if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find a way in which he can increase his offer to all NHS workers without loss of face.
There is an abhorrence of industrial action within the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman said so today, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have said it in the past. The Government amendment says it. That abhorrence is fully shared by every employee in the NHS. That should be taken on board. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are deliberately exploiting the reluctance of NHS employees of every grade to take industrial action to hold down to the lowest possible level—comparable only with Members of Parliament—the offer that he has made, on his own admission, to more than half of the NHS employees.
That is the Government's tactic. The right hon. Gentleman is intending the natural consequences of his act. It is a cynical exploitation of the natural reluctance of Health Service workers to take industrial action. It is designed to save the Government cost and trouble. The right hon. Gentleman ought to admit it. We have seen, as a result of preliminary exchanges on the matter before the debate, that the Government's case in no way rests on justice or on any attempt to provide it. It is based on power, cost-saving and the numbers involved. That much


is clear. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to pretend that the offer to ancillary workers depends on anything else.
That position guarantees a continual temptation, even among the most noble-minded Health Service employees, to have full industrial action. One can only think of what would have happened if, on the first day of limited industrial action, all the Health Service unions had withdrawn all their labour permanently. One has only to grasp that possibility—perhaps it is impossible to grapple with its full horror—to realise the way in which all Health Service employees are pulling their punches. The time has come when all hon. Members must cease to exploit that sense of unity among NHS employees.
We must return to the machinery—perhaps not in exactly the same form—that the Labour Government bequeathed to the present one in the form of the Clegg commission. The Clegg commission was set up so that there should be a permanent, regular and scientific study of pay movements and the cost of living throughout the economy to see how it affected pay in the NHS. It was also intended to ensure that there was appropriate information, without strike action, to allow Governments and unions to pay fair wages in the Health Service, relative to the rest of the economy, rather than the country getting into the ghastly position with which we are now faced yet again.
Even at this early stage in his career, the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from a massive credibility gap. Although he says that he wants to introduce pay comparability into the NHS, he must first explain why the Government abolished the comprehensive machinery that they inherited from the Labour Government; who set it up. The right hon. Gentleman is not necessarily personally responsible for that prompt abolition, apart from any vote that he may have cast in Cabinet.
Morover, during the limited time for which the Clegg commission lived under the present Government, the Government nobbled its operations so that it did not give the answer that many people in the Health Service expected. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman makes a proposal that is based purely on Clegg it will be received with mixed feelings in the NHS because of the memory of that experience. Apart from the inherited credibility gap into which the right hon. Gentleman has had to insert himself, he is beginning to dig a credibility gap of his own. He seems to be interested only in the pay of nurses and midwives.
Over and again we hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the pay of nurses and midwives. He put the matter succinctly on 27 May. He said:
We are trying to devise a long-term arrangement for determining the pay of nurses and midwives … We would then expect that to have an implication for the professions supplementary to medicine …
There is nothing especially strong there. He went on:
I am also prepared to consider the implications that that would have for the rest of the workers in the National Health Service."—[Official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1061.]
I see the Minister nod, so I need not produce further quotations from his speeches in the past few days which have tended to reinforce that line.
Nurses and midwives certainly form a vital part of the National Health Service, but all the other workers—ambulance men, cooks, cleaners, laundry people and porters—also form a vital part of the service. If they did not, they would not be there. Their pay is

therefore just as important as that of nurses, doctors and dentists. The Secretary of State must take that on board in setting out his plans for the future.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I entirely accept that they all have to be paid, but two aspects must be borne in mind. First, a number of the jobs, especially among the cleaners, contractors and some but not all of the porters, could well be dealt with by subcontract so that the burden would not fall so directly. Secondly, where there is a dramatic increase in certain of those aspects as there has been—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, there has not.]—there would be a good deal more money if there were a decrease in subsidiary and ancillary services.

Mr. Moyle: I do not wish to start a long debate about the morality of subcontracting, but I have noticed that subcontractors demand to be paid and they also pay their employees, so I cannot see how that would be a saving to the National Health Service. The hon. and learned Gentleman's arithmetic is about as good as the Secretary of State's. Indeed, the Secretary of State said today that if everyone received the same percentage increase differentials would be reduced. That is not true, of course. If both nursing sisters and hospitals cleaners received an increase of, say, 8 per cent., 10 per cent., or 12 per cent., the cash value of the differential would in fact increase.
The other employees in the Health Service besides nurses and midwives are equally necessary and the right hon. Gentleman had better treat them all on that basis. Otherwise a continuing sense of unfairness will develop in the Health Service, and, if the situation this year is bad, it will be worse next year and even worse the following year.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: I acknowledge the experience of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), but I cannot agree with his argument. I agree that the debate is important as it takes place at a time when industrial action is already prejudicing patient care in the Health Service and health workers have decided to intensify their current campaign of industrial action.
The Government cannot ignore the undoubted fact that nurses and ancillary workers in the National Health Service feel that they have been let down by successive Governments and that the public have great sympathy for them. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving the matter further consideration, has called in a go-between and is supporting new methods for determining nurses' pay.
Although the Royal College of Nurses, which represents the majority of nurses, has turned down the Government's original offer, its members, in accordance with their usual high principles, will not strike. The ancillary workers should bear in mind that if they continue their industrial action they will lose a great deal of support if it leads to a situation similar to that which arose in 1978–79 when many patients' lives were endangered and a great deal of suffering and discomfort ensued. For hospital ancillary workers to place themselves in the position of deciding which patients are seriously ill enough to be considered as emergencies is wholly unacceptable. As a dentist, I have a certain amount of medical knowledge, but I certainly could not rest happily if I thought that people 's lives depended on my estimation of the seriousness of their condition.
Of course we cannot say that we are satisfied with the salaries received by Health Service staff, but in every trade and profession people in this country are being paid less than their counterparts in other countries because we have not created a proper climate for industrial prosperity. We must bear in mind that the National Health Service is the largest single employer in the country and that £12 billion per year of public money is spent on it—an increase of 6 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office—and that more than half of the total expenditure consists of wage costs. Every concession by the Government has a real effect on the economy as a whole. Therefore, it is understandable that the Government do not wish to do anything that might halt the improvements in the economy that are now becoming more and more apparent.
It is interesting to note that the Select Committee on Social Services, in its third report on public expenditure in the social services in the 1980–81 Session—in this context, I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)—recommended that, because the cost of providing jobs in the Health Service was not high, the Government might create opportunities for people to take up work in areas of the country where there is a low Health Service provision coupled with high unemployment. Although as a member of the Select Committee I must accept responsibility for that recommendation, I was sceptical about it and not surprised when the Government decided that the Committee had not taken overheads fully into account, nor the fact that it would be difficult to limit recruits to men who would otherwise be receiving maximum benefits, as would be necessary for the scheme to be economically viable.
I have always supported the Government's overall strategy of trying to provide real jobs in the private sector, and I accepted the Government's reply to the Select Committee's recommendation. Nevertheless, the Government must have been influenced to some extent by the Committee's argument, because, unlike other areas of employment in the public sector, the number of jobs in the Health Service has increased considerably and there are now many more nurses and significantly more ancillary staff. I do not believe that the Health Service unions have taken that fully into account, or the fact that, unlike employees in the private sector, their members have security in jobs that are sought after and highly prized. I acknowledge the remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) on this point, but when these jobs are advertised there is no shortage of excellent applicants, while many other job advertisements do not achieve a great response.
It is sad that decent people are taking collective action in the name of their unions, which, in the Health Service, could be cruel and dangerous. Anyone who has been associated with business in the private sector knows that people in this country are loyal and extremely conscientious. In the past few years of economic difficulty, we have seen that they are prepared to make real sacrifices for the sake of the economic viability of the businesses for which they work. Yet the same type of people working in the public sector are prepared to

endanger lives and are behaving in a way that could never have been envisaged—and this has happened whether the Government have been Labour or Conservative.
Therefore, greater impetus must be given by the Government to increase the contracting out of catering and laundry services to private firms. I know that the Government have offered advice and encouragement to health authorities, but the response has been unsatisfactory. The Government should also be instrumental in setting up a pilot scheme at one large hospital whereby laundry and kitchen space and equipment are rented to private firms. This would mean better and possibly cheaper services and would be to the advantage of all concerned. Patients would have better services, because if, for example, meals were below standard, the contract could be terminated. Most important, the union monopoly would be broken and hospitals would not periodically be hostages to bullying unions.
The majority of people would be deeply grateful to the Government if this were put into effect, as they seek reassurance that they would not be subject to the possibility of being caught up in a dispute when they need hospital treatment. As soon as the industrial action is settled, I hope that the Government will make every attempt to move towards this privatisation measure. I believe that it would bring significant benefits in future industrial relations.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), I should declare an interest. I am a Member sponsored by the General and Municipal Workers Union, many members of which work in the Health Service. In addition, I had been Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security for only a few weeks when, asked by Mrs. Barbara Castle to take responsibility for staff and industrial relations across the board, we had the first industrial stoppage in the Department. However, I do not accept responsibility for that.
The Falklands crisis and events in Poland have distracted attention from the National Health Service workers' battle on the home front. However, the significance of the fight that the Health Service workers are putting up today may well outweigh that of other battles in the long term. I shall return to that point later.
The Government have turned a co-operative and caring work force into an increasingly militant one through their rigid and insensitive attitude. Even the traditionally docile Royal College of Nursing, which has until now refused to sanction industrial action, has voted overwhelmingly to reject the paltry offer made to it. Does the Minister feel any pride in the fact that he has caused that historic decision to be taken by nurses of the Royal College?
The Government's response to the health workers' legitimate demand has been in marked constrast to their tax handouts to the highly paid and their latest round of huge increases to the top paid in the public sector. Some of the rises due to top public officials amount to as much as the lowest paid Health Service worker will take home in a year.
To deny Health Service workers the right to a living wage without recourse to industrial action is nothing short of a national scandal. Their speed of thought and action daily save the lives of scores of people.
The assault on the living standards of nurses and other National Health Service workers should not be seen in isolation from the overall attack on the NHS that has been carried out by the Government. The Government reduced the real level of expenditure on the NHS by half of 1 per cent. in real terms in their first year of office. The Treasury Select Committee estimates that over the next two years spending on the NHS will decline by over 2 per cent. in real terms.
The impact is far greater. Even if spending was maintained in real terms, expenditure would be inadequate to preserve existing services and to cope with the growing numbers of ill people imposing demands on the Health Service. A real growth in spending of 1 per cent. a year is needed to preserve existing services alone and to meet the demands of the increasing number of aged people.
At the same time, the Government have sought every possible means to undermine confidence in the NHS. Private medicine has been encouraged and supported. There have been attempts to introduce private medical insurance in the public sector. The principle of health care provided on the basis of need and not wealth is once more at stake. The concept of a Health Service funded from general taxation has also been threatened. There have been persistent rumours of Government attempts to introduce an insurance element, despite the almost universal condemnation of the medical profession and the trade unions in the National Health Service, as well as that of many other interested parties.
The Government have done everything possible to promote the privatisation of aspects of the Health Service through the contracting-out of its work. In that context, the Government's harsh and intransigent attitude to the lower paid in the NHS has been the final straw for the Health Service workers. The Government's pay policy in the public sector has long since revealed itself as no more than placating the strong and punishing the weak. Because of their reluctance to take industrial action, Health Service workers are in the weakest bargaining position in the public sector.
The Government's response has been to impose settlements on the NHS that have been successfully resisted elsewhere. I do not need to remind the House that in the public sector workers generally have not been restricted to increases of 4 per cent. The miners had an increase of 8·6 per cent., local authority manual workers 6·9 per cent., water workers 9·1 per cent. and civil servants achieved an increase—true, it was via arbitration—of 6·9 per cent. Meanwhile, higher paid public servants, whose pay is settled by an independent review body, have had rises of up to 18·9 per cent. Judges had an increase of 18·9 per cent. and senior civil servants had one of 14·3 per cent.
There are 270,000 ancillary staff employed by the NHS, half of whom are part-time. Almost 55 per cent. of the full-time workers, including 41,000 women, earned less that £75 a week in 1981. The average gross earnings for all ancillary workers in 1981 was £87·96 compared with a figure for the country as a whole of £140·50. Four per cent. of very little is indeed very little. I will not use the expression that a certain trade union leader used outside the House, but it is, nevertheless, true.
In spite of what the Secretary of State has said, the Government offer of 6·4 per cent. to the nurses was a

blatant attempt to divide and rule Health Service workers. Even so, the gross increase for a staff nurse would be £5·46 per week, resulting in a net rise of £2·34.
For many years ambulance men have argued for the same status and pay as the two other branches of the emergency services, the police and the fire brigade. On 31 July 1981 the Secretary of State recognised ambulance men as an essential part of the emergency services. Despite that recognition, their pay remains far behind that of their colleagues in the emergency services. In the police, ranks below police superintendent earn on average—

Mr. Rees-Davies: rose—

Mr. Brown: No, I will not give way. This is a short debate and I must continue.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is easy to read the TUC brief. It should be put in the Library.

Mr. Brown: I am not reading a TUC brief.
The Government should now summon any compassion that they have to meet the demands of the Health Service workers. They are asking for 12 per cent. and even that will leave many o f them earning a miserable pittance. The Government must look to a longer term arrangement—which I understand they intend to do—not just for nurses' pay but for ancillary workers and everybody else who works in the NHS.
If the Government do not do that, I must warn them that there might be terrible consequences in store. Health Service workers are rightly reluctant to take the ultimate action that could cost lives. However, powerful allies are now coming to the aid of Health Service workers. The miners took action this week and now my union, the General and Municipal Workers Union, has threatened to call on its public sector workers to show solidarity with the nurses' cause. My union effectively controls gas, water and electricity workers, who have great industrial muscle. If the Secretary of State continues to resist the Health Service workers' claim, he may find himself tackling a far tougher nut then the NHS workers whom he originally decided to treat with such contempt.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I have already read the TUC brief carefully. We have just heard the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) read out its brief, not the GMWU' s brief. It would be perfectly good policy to leave the brief in the Library, so that other hon. Members can read it. It is well drafted, but it unfortunately misses the point. It fails to understand the background and why so many NUPE workers and others are not relatively highly paid. I shall paint the picture so that those concerned can understand it. [Interruption.] There will not be any laughter when hon. Members have heard the figures, because they are remarkable.
There is little party political capital to be made out of my remarks, because they will hit both sides. In 1979 the Conservative Party manifesto stated:
In our National Health Service standards are falling; there is a crisis of morale; too often patients' needs do not come first. It is not our intention to reduce spending on the Health Service; indeed, we intend to make better use of what resources are available. So we will simplify and decentralise the service and cut back bureacracy 
A Select Committee has not yet had time, or has not chosen, to deal with one of the most important questions.


Will the National Health Service be allowed to grow and grow without any control over its eventual size, or will it be contained within reasonable limits, so that high standards and good pay can be maintained? That is the issue.
I shall pose three simple questions, which I shall then try to answer. First, given that today there are 200,000 more nurses than the 236,000 that were employed in 1960, do we still need to increase the number of nurses by over 11,000 per annum? In 1960 there were 236,711 nurses and midwives. In 1970 the figure had risen to 343,682 and by 1980 it had risen to 448,870. That information can be found in column 270 of Hansard of 23 November 1981. The number of medical and dental staff has increased from 20,000 in 1960 to over 46,450 in 1980. We must ask ourselves whether the figure for nurses is to increase every year by about 11,000.
The second simple question is: why did the number of administrators increase by over 3,000 between 1979 and 1980? That was a large increase. It occurred not under a Labour, but under a Tory Government. Why was there such a big increase?
The third question is: why did the number of ambulance personnel need to be increased by nearly 1,000 between 1979 and 1980? Were there suddenly more accidents in 1979–80 than in 1978–79? There were not.
In the past 20 years we have steadily failed to alter the general direction of overmanning, restrictive practices and falling standards. In 1960 the population was 52,559,000. By 1980 it had risen to 56,010,000, but the population covered by the National Health Service had fallen from over 98 per cent. to 93 per cent. during those 20 years. The proportion covered has fallen because the British United Provident Association and other organisations now provide private care for 4 million people. In 1960 only 1¼ million were covered in that way. The number of those who look after themselves through private health care is rapidly increasing. In addition, the trade unions, particularly the electrical unions, have their own hospitals and cottage hospitals. Not only employers, but good union members recognise the need for private health care. The cost of the National Health Service is large and rising. Because the number of nurses, administrators and ambulance men has doubled in the past 20 years, difficulties arise over pay.
I shall now mention a figure which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your great knowledge of these matters will fully appreciate, but I do not believe that the House appreciates it. Do hon. Members realise that in the past year or so a reduction of just over 56,000 has been laboriously achieved in the Civil Service, through redundancies and so on? At the same time there has been an increase of 67,000 in the number of National Health Service personnel.
I do not say that we have not gained a lot. In many respects we have, but my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must face the problem that the figures for operations performed and for hospital waiting lists are not good. Given all the additional expenditure, and the additional nurses, administrators, porters, radiologists, and so on, one would have thought that the numbers on our hospital waiting lists would have fallen rapidly, but what is the truth?
In 1960 there were 401,000 people on hospital waiting lists. In 1970 the figure had risen to just under 500,000, and in 1980 it had risen to 611,000. There is no sign that the figure has significantly dropped. However, recently there has been some sign that we may be beginning to tackle hospital waiting lists. I hope that the Government will make that a top priority. We need more operating theatres. For example, many hip operations need to be done and people sometimes have to wait for two or three years.
What is our priority? My priority, and that of those whom I represent on the Isle of Thanet, is to reduce hospital waiting lists. If extra money is to be spent, it should be spent for the benefit of the patients. I do not believe in strikes in the NHS, and I do not believe that the nurses will strike. Many years ago I represented a large body of nurses. I still have a great regard for them and know that my right hon. and hon. Friends also hold them in high regard. It is time that they were categorically told that there has been a good increase.
Nowadays, many nurses are agency nurses, because it pays them to work part-time. They do not work as they did years ago. They tend to go for agency work, particularly in the London hospitals. That is a pity, and I hope that the trend will be reversed. Obviously they must be able to increase their opportunities for work, and there are many opportunities to do that, not only in the NHS, but in the private sector and in hospitals and services at home and overseas. There is no real reason for complaint about their pay and conditions.
There are far too many ancillary workers. There are too many cleaners at the Westminster hospital in London. The number of hours worked is too high. The work could be done in fewer hours, without the need to employ them on a full-time basis. I hope that the contracting services will come in and that great care will be taken to save money by making reductions in the National Health Service. I hope, then, that those who remain in the service—95 per cent. of the total—will be able to get an improved standard of pay. I should like to have seen a slightly higher rate, as I should have liked to see a slightly higher rate for Members of Parliament. Four per cent. is on the low side for both groups. I might have opted for 6 per cent., but I do not see any case for a large increase at any point in this sector. They have had a growing and improving service, and we now want to see that that improving service improves the service for the patient. The patient must come first and foremost in all our considerations.

Mr. Clement Freud: This is the fourth Parliament of which I have been a Member. While I have sat on the Liberal Bench I have been accompanied on this side of the House by colleagues in Opposition who were sometimes of one political party and sometimes of another. Yet in one case they were totally consistent. When they were in Opposition, they blamed the Government for the shoddy treatment that was meted out to nurses. When they appeared on the Government side of the House, they defended their action.
Nurses—I have checked my figures with great care—have had pay within 5 per cent. of 60 per cent. of national average pay. Ward sisters have been within 6 per cent. of 75 per cent. of national average pay. Over the years we have seen the Halsbury and Clegg reports. One welcomes the Secretary of State's request for the chairman


of ACAS to come in, but I wonder for how long anyone will be satisfied until we have an incomes policy and we stop trying to score party political points in one way or another.
On Tuesday, after a private notice question, I asked the Minister to be generous, to adopt an incomes policy, and to recognise the many nurses and physiotherapists who continue to work regardless of the dispute. The Secretary of State, in a traditional shirty reply, said:
I do not know what is the hon. Gentleman's definition of an incomes policy—and I am not sure that he does either."—[Official Report, 8 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 21.]
In his speech today the Secretary of State said that we needed new machinery for dealing with pay issues in future years. I should simply like to tell him that that is what I meant by an incomes policy, and clearly he now understands. We need new machinery for dealing with pay issues. We need an incomes policy to take away the specific case and to go for the general concept.
We welcome ACAS. I repeat the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that ACAS must be asked to cause no division between the component parts of the National Health Service. That would be invidious. What worries us predominantly is that the Government could have been so out of touch as to have thought that the poll among members of the Royal College of Nursing would be anything but a massive rejection of their offer.
The Governent, like all Governments, referred to the decency and integrity of the nursing profession. The nurses have spoken loudly and clearly. They do not want to strike. The House would say to the Secretary of State "Do not force them to do something so alien to their nature". We all admit that workers have the right to withdraw their labour, but what on earth are they to do other than to withdraw their labour? I ask the Secretary of State to give them a reasonable increase now—one that will at least retain their position on the higher scale of the percentage. Then, in good time, an incomes policy should be brought in, as the Secretary of State intimated and as we, on the Liberal Bench, have advised him since the Government came to power.

Mr. Richard Alexander: First, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the House for having to leave the Chamber shortly after I make my speech. I had a duty arranged before I knew the subject of the debate.
There can be hardly anyone in the House or in the country who is not deeply concerned about the dispute. Almost all of us will have been cared for by the nursing profession at some time in our lives. Their reluctance to take strike action should not be a reason for taking tough action over their pay now. My concern is wider than concern for nurses and midwives. I should like to express concern today for those who need treatment inside or outside hospital but who are not receiving it. Operations and treatment for non-urgent cases are being delayed by the dispute at a time when hospital waiting lists have been significantly reduced in accordance with the pledge that we made at the 1979 general election.
In cold print, an operation for an arthritic hip replacement for the relief of back pain or an operation for

an hernia might be regarded as non-urgent, but for the person concerned it is extremely urgent. Such people are at the heart of, and are hurt by, the dispute.
There is undoubtedly widespread sympathy for the nurses and midwives. They are skilled, dedicated and underpaid. In contrast to what we have heard from some Opposition Members, I do not believe that whenever we talk about nurses' and midwives' pay we ought automatically to be talking about ancillary workers' pay at the same time. I do not seek to drive a wedge between the claims of the two groups, but I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they be dealt with separately and on their own merits. That seems sensible.
The ancillary workers do an essential job, but often their militancy, their growth in numbers, and their unwillingness even to consider the possibility of their work being done by the private sector with consequent savings to the Health Service budget means that they do not have the sympathy of the general public at this time.
When ancillary workers have an average take-home wage of £104, albeit including overtime, it is difficult to justify the argument that they are on the poverty line, and that they are justified in taking the strike action with the results that I have mentioned. We talk about take-home pay and overtime. Most jobs involve overtime, and overtime payments must be considered when we talk about the average pay package. Many hon. Members work overtime. Many of my hon. Friends, including myself, and some Labour Members worked a 19-hour day yesterday. We do not always expect overtime for what we do.

Mr. Race: We get paid for that.

Mr. Alexander: Therefore, we must take into account what ancillary workers take home, including a reasonable amount of overtime.
It is difficult to feel sympathy for those now engaged in strike action when my constituents know that many in the private sector have gone without pay increases, and that many others have settled for increases within 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. However, those in the National Health Service continue with their secure jobs and inflation-proofed pensions.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not true.

Mr. Alexander: It is true. They have secure jobs compared with the jobs of the majority of those who work in the private sector. Security of employment is a factor that must be taken into account. Furthermore, we must not forget that since 1979 the Government have been spending more on the NHS in real terms. The number employed in the NHS has increased. Some may thimk that that is a blessing because hospital waiting lists have been reduced. This is not a picture of a Government who care little for the Health Service or for patient care.
Those employed in the NHS must accept that there is a limit to the money that is available for increased wages. If the Government accede to the demand for a 12 per cent. increase, the cost to the nation will be an additional £780 million. That sum could be raised by extra taxation, a reduction of the service or a reduction in the number employed in it. Those are the options that my right hon. Friend must bear in mind when he considers the 12 per cent. claim. No other options are open to him.
Since 1979 an additional 50,000 have been employed in the Health Service. Has it been entirely necessary to


employ each one of the 50,000? The NHS work force has doubled since 1960. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, a significantly greater proportion of the public are taking their health care needs out of the public sector.
A few days ago there was a television interview outside a hospital and a picketing nurse was asked "Are you leaving your patients at risk in the ward?" The young lady properly replied "Not at all. They are perfectly adequately cared for and we are well staffed in the ward without my presence today." Overmanning, the non-separation of nurses' and ancillary workers' pay structures and the lack of acceptance that the private sector has a part to play in the NHS are the difficulties that are facing the Health Service. If my right hon. Friend faces them, there will be a decent level of pay for all in the service, and that will automatically follow.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the Conservative Party's manifesto of 1979 it was promised that a Conservative Government would treat the nursing profession as a special case? It was the party's intention to bring them out of the party political wage round negotiating procedure. We have done that for the police and for those in the Armed Services, so why cannot we do it for the nurses and the paramedical staff, who are suffering quite severely and are being treated very differently from the two other special cases? Do they not merit the same consideration, and now?

Mr. Alexander: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the argument that I have been advancing. We must treat nurses and the paramedicals on their own merits. Let us not become bogged down with the numbers who are involved in the ancillary services. I support my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Two days ago, during the latest one-day stoppage, I joined the picket line outside the Oldham and district hospital in my constituency. I did so because I believe passionately that the nurses and other Health Service workers have a rightful case. I talked to them, and it was clear that they did not want to take industrial action. They were forced into doing so because they could see no other way of getting their just claim met.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon Gentleman tell us how many patients he prevented from getting medical care in the course of his stint with the union that he supported?

Mr. Meacher: No patients were prevented from getting medical care. All those who approached the hospital were told of the reasons for the dispute. Those who insisted on going in, and certainly all the urgent or emergency cases, were allowed through. There was no disruption of proper medical care in Oldham, and I am sure that the same goes for other places.
One of those on the picket line was Mr. Robert Paterson, a kitchen porter at the Oldham and district hospital. He showed me his pay slip, and I have it with me. I shall be pleased to show it to the Minister at the end of the debate. He works a 38-hour week, for which he is paid £57·10. After enhanced payments for working all day on Saturday and Sunday, a 25 per cent. bonus because of the

redundancies that were achieved in a previous self-financing productivity deal and after all stoppages, he took home £58·90. That must be compared with the national average wage of about £150 and the sum that the Secretary of State took home last week, which must have been about £550.
Mr. Paterson is not an exceptional case. I met a porter who did not receive the bonus because his section had not been part of the self-financing deal. He was paid £49 for a 40-hour week. I can validate every one of the cases to which I shall refer with the appropriate documentation if the Minister wishes to see it. I met a female full-time clerk of 20 years of age who worked 37 hours and received £43 a week. I was told of a theatre technician who is required to be on call for five nights a week for 12 hours per night, for which he receives the princely sum of 50p per night.
I met a mortuary technician who receives £60·13 for a 40-hour week. He gave graphic details of what it is like to strip the body of a lice-ridden tramp. I shall spare the House the details. I met some student technicians and junior path-lab officers under 21 years of age. The Government believe that they deserve no increase, because they have been awarded a zero increase.
These details show that the debate is about poverty. It is not about a public sector norm that is built on money supply targets. I wonder how many Conservative Members, including the Secretary of State and his well-heeled colleagues, have any idea of what it is like to live on £50 to £60 a week—little more than one-third of the average national wage. How many Conservative Members would want their sons or daughters to take on the jobs to which I have referred at the present levels of pay? It means having to skimp on food, walk a couple of miles to save a 30p bus fare, not being able to afford a holiday and having to refuse treats for children that other children expect and normally get. It means poverty, and a 4 per cent. or 6 per cent. increase will not take these people out of poverty.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has given a number of figures. Is he disputing the average figure that I have given to the House of £104, for example, as the average for a full-time male ancillary worker?

Mr. Meacher: The figures that I have show that the average wage of an NHS ancillary worker is £99·30 a week. That means that many are paid more and that many are paid less than that. The right hon. Gentleman said that relatively few hours of overtime were worked. To get up to that sort of figure, the hours of overtime must be considerably more than those that he mentioned. I have here some pay slips that I should be glad to show to the right hon. Gentleman. He cannot deny that there are many people paid at this level.

Mr. Fowler: The figure of £99 is wrong. It is £104. Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the five and a half hours average for overtime that I mentioned?

Mr. Meacher: The figure that I have is £99 but the difference between £99 and £104, when the Minister earns £550, is not that much. I do not dispute the five and a half hours average overtime, but many ancillary workers do not have the opportunity to get up to the £99 mark. That is the average figure. The distribution on either side is considerable. Many are being paid at an exceedingly low level. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that fact.
The one clear lesson from this dispute—and this was made clear to me on the picket line—is that the nurses will not settle for better pay if their even lower paid ancillary colleagues do not get the same increase.
The Secretary of State said that the money is not available. In his speech he laid great emphasis on affordability. What is so insulting about this attitude is the values that are revealed. The Government will happily shell out £1 billion—or will it eventually be £2 billion—on a military regaining of territory 8,000 miles away, but they cannot find the money to provide a Health Service to save people's lives in this country.
Not only that, but the Government have made it offensively clear in the current pay round that, even within the public sector, they are willing to enhance further the high living of the already well paid. At the same time, they are steadfastly determined—this is the meaning of what the right hon. Gentleman said today—to enforce the cut in living standards of the manifestly poor, such as the full-time nurses, who even after overtime, earn a weekly wage below the family income supplement poverty line of £82 a week.
In this dispute we are seeing the ugly face of the Government's social values—a recipe for two nations with a vengeance. That is even more so if one looks at the money rather than the percentages, but it reveals only partly the Government's priorities. They have already awarded 18·6 per cent. to judges and 14·3 per cent. to senior civil servants, but they have refused to offer more than 6·4 per cent. to nurses, and only 4 per cent. to ancillary workers, when inflation is running at 9 per cent. to 10 per cent.
Percentages do not buy goods in shops. In money terms, the average gross earnings of full-time female nurses—the vast majority of nurses are women—was £99·70 in 1981. Those are the official figures from the Employment Gazette. The increase proposed by the Government works out at £5 to £6 a week, depending on overtime work. In comparison, judges, already on £673 a week in 1981, have just been awarded an extra £144 a week. Top civil servants on £689 a week last year have been given an additional £119 a week. Both groups are already well heeled, but they have been awarded pay increases in excess of the total new annual salary proposed for nurses.
The Secretary of State argues that nurses in the NHS should not resort to industrial action. We suggest that if he really believed that, he would not exploit them. They are being exploited when we consider the awards already given to other groups and the promises that were made to them. In 1980, nurses accepted 14 per cent. when inflation was 20 per cent, because they were told that they would be treated as a special case in 1981. In 1981, they accepted 6 per cent. when inflation was 12 per cent., because they were told that they would be treated as a special case in 1982. In 1982, they have been awarded 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. when inflation is 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. It is time that the Government respected their promises and treated the nurses and other Health Service workers as the special case that they deserve to be.
6.16 pm

Sir Albert Costain: Nurses' pay is an emotional subject. The point that needs to be made is that if we are to run a hospital efficiently we need to have an efficient staff of nurses. I have found in my

conversations with nurses and ancillary staff that the reorganisation has not been in the pattern that they have expected. Many of those who joined the nursing service to do a nursing job are now being made to do administration work. We must appreciate that they would rather be nursing.
I know nurses who have been promoted to jobs which they do not want to do, yet if they get not get that promotion they do not get the increase that they deserve. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has heard of many examples of money having been wasted on hospital building. Often, that money could be better spent on providing better facilities for nurses.
This morning I received a number of letters from constituents who are physiotherapists, claiming that they are getting only 4 per cent. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State tell the House that they will be receiving the same increase as nurses. If I am not correct in that, I hope that the Secretary of State will give the reason why.
6.18 pm

Mr. Tom Pendry: I must first, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) did, declare my interest. I am secretary of the National Union of Public Employees group in the House. Before entering the House I spent 10 years in the service of that union, helping, among others, Health Service workers. Thus, to some extent, I share the background of my right hon. Friend. While I am concerned in particular with the 300,000 workers in the Heath Service who are NUPE members, I am interested and concerned with the whole dispute.
The Secretary of State has been guilty of a great deal of hypocrisy. He speaks of his concern for the welfare and safety of patients, yet the discomfort experienced—there is no doubt that there has been discomfort and there may be more—by patients and would-be patients is his responsibility. If it is not his responsibility, perhaps more accurately it is the responsibility of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
This dispute should never have reached the stage where the Health Service workers were driven into taking industrial action. The Secretary of State has been unreasonable to refuse to entertain the proposal of the TUC health services committee that the matter should go before ACAS or another independent arbitration body. The formula has been before the Secretary of State for about five weeks, yet he has ignored it in his usual blinkered fashion.
The right hon. Gentleman's apparent determination to make the NHS pay settlement the arena for a trial of strength between a Government still petulantly calling for pay increases of no more than 4 per cent. in the public sector and NHS workers—whose dedication and commitment is unquestioned—has been an of folly bordering on incompetence.
I am being generous by using the word "bordering". However, I am a charitable man and perhaps the Secretary of State is secretly reluctant to preside over this scandalous turn of events. In that case, he should be ashamed of allowing himself to be tied to the apron strings of the Prime Minister and of being her creature in yet another of her vainglorious postures of ferric stubbornness.
The glister on the right hon Lady's iron image is looking very tarnished. To date, no other group of public


service workers has been pegged to 4 per cent. in the current pay round. The pay offers over which the Government have control have so blantly been on the "favoured son" principle—with judges receiving a monstrous 18·6 per cent. and the police 13·2 per cent.—that the country is right to react with scorn and derision to the Government's insistence on 4 per cent. for the majority of Health Service workers.
The Secretary of State has conducted the affair despicably acting on behalf of a Government who have been shown to be rigid on pay only with those who they know are reluctant to take industrial action. However, his actions have been seen by the country for the dirty tricks that they are and the longer he persists with his present course, the more ardent will nation-wide support for the Health Service workers become. No crocodile tears on the part of the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister can disguise the fact that the offers made to nurses, ancillary workers and others in the Health Service are derisory and insulting to the dedication that those workers have always shown to the sick.
Happily, there is complete unity within the National Health Service on the inadequacy of this offer. The Secretary of State has miscalculated once again in believing that the professional services within the NHS—not only nurses, but radiographers, physiotherapists and others—could be bought off by a mere 2·4 per cent. over the 4 per cent. offer to ancillary grades. Correspondence sent to Members on both sides of the House will bear out the fact that the professional bodies have rightly agreed that the offer is both highly insulting and divisive.
It is important that the Secretary of State understands the extremely harmful and divisive nature of the Government's offer. Within the National Health Service the workers, ranging from consultants to ancillary workers, have always been mutually dependent, working together as a team. The Government's strategy in attempting to sunder this complex pattern of relationships by means of differential offers demonstrates their lack of understanding. If the offer were to be successful it would go a long way towards breaking up the vital team enterprise on which the nation's health is built. Given the Government's health policy during the past three years, one ought not to be surprised.
Another of the Secretary of State's miscalculations is that he has completely misjudged the mood of the general public, who are solidly behind the health workers' claim. Even the media have seen the justice of the health workers' case, although perhaps they have not done so in the past.
The Secretary of State has perhaps misjudged his own area health authority, because the district authorities in Birmingham have already sent him telegrams asking that the matter be referred to arbitration. The regional authorities have done the same. He is on dangerous ground even on his own patch.
I urge the Government even now to recognise that they have misjudged the mood of the country, the medical profession and the National Health Service workers. They had better not tamper with matters by bringing in the former chairman of ACAS, but should respond to the TUC's demands that ACAS be brought in, that a just claim be met and that we return to a proper Health Service where the Government are seen to recognise the worth of those

who work in it. All the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) are true. One could give more illustrations about the work that is done at below poverty line rates. The Government must respond, because they have missed out on this one.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) misjudged the mood of the miners when he took them on. If the Government are not careful they will find themselves in the same position by taking on the Health Service workers when the general mood of the country is behind those workers.
6.25 pm

Mr. Mike Thomas: I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said earlier, because until now the Government's position in this dispute has been near to indefensible. Successive attempts by Ministers to turn the gun of public approbrium on Health Service workers have been disreputable in the extreme and the amendment on the Order Paper today is a classic example. There is no doubt that the Health Service workers have a case. Since their pay was last properly reviewed, a gap of about 10 to 20 per cent. has opened up between their treatment and that of other comparable workers. If we consider the going rate in the public sector, their case clearly merits an increase of between 7 and 10 per cent. Many groups of workers have had "special case" pay increases of between 10 and 14 per cent.
That must lead us inescapably to the conclusion that the Government's policy is totally cynical. They give in to those who have muscle and exploit those who do not, regardless of their work for the community. That cynical calculation is further compounded by the Government's crude and blatant efforts to divide and rule. There can be no other justification for the terms of the amendment. It refers to half of the Health Service workers. What about the other half, amongst whom are some of the most poorly paid people in Britain? The Government have forgotten that their job should be to restore a sense of commitment to the National Health Service.
The disputes arise from a genuine sense of grievance and unfairness. If we are not careful, they will leave a damaging legacy of bitterness within the service. That is why we are determined to deal with Health Service pay within the context of an incomes policy for the entire non-trading public sector. It may be that an NHS pay board, including doctors and dentists as well as other health workers, is an answer to the problem. Certainly the Government's offer of a continuing mechanism simply for nurses and midwives is no answer. It is more "divide and rule".
Sadly the approach of the Labour Party and of some trade union leaders is little better. How can the Bennite Left and the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) continue to preach the virtues of free collective bargaining when they should know that free collective bargaining has left NHS ancillary workers at the bottom of the pay league? The best increases that they had were during periods of incomes policy.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) made an excellent case. Unfortunately, it was a case with which the National Union of Public Employees and the Labour Party officially do not agree.
While I understand and sympathise with the plight of the health workers, I counsel them to exercise some


caution, too. Industrial action is a dangerous road to embark on, however outrageous the treatment being meted out by the Government. This is not just because inevitably claims will be made—the Government already make them gleefully in their own cause—that
the health and safety of patients
will be "put at risk" but also because their greatest asset in achieving a better settlement is public sympathy.
The health workers will not serve their own interests best by running the risk of forfeiting that sympathy. Indeed, they play the Government's own "divide and rule" game when they allow such a stark distinction to be drawn, for example, between the Royal College of Nursing with its no-strike commitment and the industrial action of NUPE, CoHSE and the General and Municipal Workers Union. It would be much better if all the workers in the NHS could rely on the Government to respond to a total rejection of industrial action on their part with a proper and continuing arrangement for all of their pay.
The most damaging aspect of the dispute is that it will destroy any faith the workers might have had in the Government's capacity to pursue that approach. At the next election we shall offer them that possibility once again.
6.31 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be extremely brief. [Interruption.] I have caught Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye and I am permitted to participate in the debate. Just because I had other commitments earlier and was not able to hear the whole debate does not prevent me, I hope, from participating.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I have just taken the Chair. I understand that the wind-up speeches were to begin at approximately 6.30 pm, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.

Mr. Winterton: I shall be extremely brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am gravely worried about the Government's attitude to nurses and the paramedical professions; they have been badly let down. The fact that the Royal College of Nursing has for the first time in its history turned down a wage award by the Government clearly shows the level of dissatisfaction and concern felt by an historically moderate and responsible group of workers. I have met nurses and members of the paramedical professions in my constituency and I have never found among these people, who are among the most responsible groups of workers, such a feeling of concern, dissatisfaction and frustration.
I may be the only Conservative Member to reflect the views that I am putting forward. There is no harm in that. The Government are not honouring an election commitment. I accept fully the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that he wants to find a permanent mechanism to ensure that the nursing profession has a satisfactory level of wages which will be geared to a particular qualified group within the community.
As I pointed out in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), if the Government can make an arrangement for the police and for the Armed Services there is no reason why they cannot do it for nurses and paramedical groups

within the National Health Service. These are vital workers who deserve the support not only of the Government but of all hon. Members.
It is my intention to abstain in the vote because the Government have failed to honour their election manifesto commitment, something which I cannot tolerate. I cannot go along with the motion in the name of the official Opposition.
There is no reason for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to say to the House that we are spending more on the National Health Service and on the nursing profession when we all know why. There are indeed more nurses, but they are working shorter hours; that was the reason for more nurses being employed. We all want to see nurses working more reasonable hours so that they can give better attention to the patients in our hospitals.
This is an important matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) was right when he said that we need to look at the rationalisation of ancillary workers. I hope that those hon. Members who represent CoHSE and NUPE appreciate that there will have to be a reduction in the number of ancillary workers. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I want them to get a fair deal. At the same time, there should be fewer of them.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate the depth of feeling on this subject among people who are supporters of the Government. They think that nurses deserve a better deal, not next year in 1983–84 but in 1982–83. I hope that he will turn his attention to this and give them the increase which will justify my again being able to support the Government if there is a motion put forward on the subject.
6.35 pm

Mr. Terry Davis: Like many of my hon. Friends, I must begin with a declaration of interest. I, too, am sponsored, by the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, which represents some people who work in the Health Service.
The Secretary of State began differently, with a lecture about the effect of industrial action on the Health Service. He deplored not only the need for industrial action, but the industrial action itself because it is potentially dangerous and puts patients at risk. That is to state the obvious. I know it, the House knows it, and the staff know it. That is why the staff have always been so reluctant to take industrial action.
The Opposition do not approve of industrial action in the National Health Service, but we do not join the Government in condemning it because we understand why the staff feel that they have no alternative, and why they feel that all Governments have always taken advantage of their reluctance to take industrial action and have exploited their dedication to patients. We understand that this year the staff in the Health Service have simply been taken for granted once too often.
The Secretary of State paid tribute to the thousands who have continued to work normally. It is significant that he did not pay tribute to the trade unions for having decided against calling an all-out strike. Better still, instead o I paying tribute, why will the Secretary of State not pay them more money?
In regard to the new and permanent arrangements for next year, the Labour Party welcomes the conversion of


the Government. After all, it was this Government who abolished the Clegg Commission. Now they have changed their mind, but what about this year?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) said, the Secretary of State kept talking about nurses and not ancillary workers. Of course, the Secretary of State treats them differently. He also distinguishes between the Royal College of Nursing and the trade unions of the Health Service. He has already met the Royal College of Nursing. Why has he failed to meet the Trades Union Congress health services committee? He denies that he is trying to drive a wedge between the Royal College of Nursing and the trade unions. What, then, is his motive?
The Secretary of State gives the impression that he is refusing to meet the TUC health services committee because industrial action is taking place. Anyone who knows anything about industrial relations will tell him that this is one of the most serious mistakes anyone can make in trying to settle an industrial dispute. He said that he would welcome a meeting with the TUC health services committee, provided that Mr. Pat Lowry could establish that there was enough common ground between him and the trade unions. I am not sure what common ground exists between the Secretary of State and the Royal College of Nursing that does not exist between him and the trade unions. Surely the common ground should be a common concern about the well-being of patients.
Why will the Secretary of State not go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service? He refuses because he says that the decision cannot be contracted out to someone outside the Government. What is the basis of his decision that 4 per cent. is enough for ancillary workers and that 6 per cent. is enough for nurses?
The Secretary of State mentioned three factors that he had taken into account. First, he said that there had been an increase in spending on the Health Service and therefore the staff should expect a smaller increase than other people. What is the logic behind that statement? Why should people accept a smaller increase in their wages because the Government are spending more money on the service in which they work?
What about other groups? Are the National Health Service workers unique? What about the police? By my calculations, the Government's expenditure on the police has increased during the past three years by the same proportion as expenditure on the National Health Service. How does the Secretary of State justify offering only 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. to National Health Service workers, when the police have rightly been offered 13 per cent?
The same argument applies to the second factor listed by the Secretary of State—the increase in the number of staff. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that a major part of that increase comes from the change in mathematics. The National Health Service has always employed a large number of part-time staff, who are converted to full-time equivalents. Three years ago there was change in the basis of that calculation. Previously, the calculation was done on the basis of a working week of 40 hours. It was then changed to 371/2 hours. Therefore, there were more full—time equivalents in the National Health Service than before, without any increase in the number of people working in the National Health Service or the hours that they were working.
The Secretary of State said that other groups had been offered more and that those other offers must be financed by reductions in staff. Does that mean that the Government are planning to employ fewer policemen and firemen? Of course not. I do not for one moment think that they have any intention of doing so. However, those people have had higher increases than the 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. offered to those who work in the National Health Service. If there were any logic in the Government's argument, there would have to be reductions in numbers in those groups in order to finance the increases in wages.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State says that the nurses should accept 6 per cent. and the ancillary workers 4 per cent. because there has been a 60 per cent. increase in nurses' pay in the past three years. That is the Secretary of State's figure. I have tried to check that figure. My calculations have been confirmed by statisticians working in the Library, and I believe that the correct figure is 33 per cent., based on information that the Government have published in the Official Report. The only way in which we can achieve a figure of 60 per cent. is by including the settlement agreed immediately before the general election in 1979. To judge from the expressions on the faces of the Ministers, that must have been included in the Government's calculations. The Government had no alternative but to honour the agreement that was made before the general election, but paid afterwards, so they cannot take the credit for it. That settlement was for the 1978–79 pay round. The figure of 60 per cent. is for four years, not for three years.
The Government have no case. Their attitude is as illogical as it is unfair. They are therefore forced to rely on a mixture of specious arguments and slick statistics.
6.44 pm

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I understand that there is a depth of feeling about the level of pay for the various people who work in the National Health Service. Before the debate started, I hoped that there would continue to be bipartisan agreement on the role of industrial or strike action in the National Health Service. During the debate it has become clear that there has been a significant change of policy in the Labour Party, expressed by Back Bench and Front Bench members.
I remind the House of the position taken by the Labour Government on 1 February 1979. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said of trade union leaders:
I deplore their policy of calling any form of industrial action in the NHS."—[Official Report, 1 February 1970; Vol 961, c. 1672.]
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) has just said, only three years later, that he does not condemn industrial action in the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that he went on a picket line. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon tyne, West (Mr. Brown) said that he supported the action of the miners and others in politicising the dispute by going on the picket lines during the dispute. I should have thought that in three years Opposition Members would not have moved so far that they now cannot bring themselves to utter a word of disapproval of condemnation of industrial action that comes between patients and the treatment that doctors believe they should recieve.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) usually goes far beyond the position of most members of the labour party. He supported the ambulance men in Northumbria who withdrew emergency services. He sought to excuse them by giving an account of the way in which he thought the action had been provoked. The management in Northumbria said that it would pay 50 per cent. of the ordinary pay if the men carried out only emergency work, which in most ambulance services is less than half of the work that they carry out. However, because they wanted full pay for doing less than their normal work, they walked out and Northumbria was left with no emergency ambulance service. I understand that the hon. Member for Wood Green excuses even that.

Mr. Race: As usual, the Minister has misinterpreted the action that employees in the National Health Service are implementing. In certain ambulance authorities the management is taking a much tougher line towards those who agree to provide emergency cover. By its actions, the management is undermining the provision of emergency cover. If the Minister had opened his ears, he would have heard me say that those men had offered to make available emergency cover, but the actions of the management undermined it.

Mr. Clarke: The tougher line to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which the Government wholly approve, in the case of the chief ambulance officer, was refusing to pay the men their full pay when they were proposing to carry out only a fraction of their duties. What mattered was that the men walked out and failed to provide any emergency services for road accident victims and others. The hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to condemn that. Other hon. Members did not go that far, but there has not been a word of effective criticism by the Opposition of those who are taking industrial action.
I shall not deal with the extreme cases. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that he did not come between patients and the care that they required, although what on earth one is doing on a picket line trying to reduce the number of patients going into a hospital other than coming between individuals and health care I cannot understand.
I shall give a description not of an extreme case but of an ordinary case. In the Financial Times on Saturday 5 June there was an article about incidents at Leicester, where the TUC code has not broken down. A journalist, Mr. David Goodhart, who saw how the picket lines were going said:
The ruthless union thugs of Lindsay Anderson's film Britannia Hospital were nowhere to be seen as the hospital administrator and the police discussed with pickets how best to order the proceedings.
Therefore, that was not a bad or extreme case. I shall quote from another part of the article referring to what went on on the picket line:
A tearful old lady was turned away from visiting a sick friend and there was a bit of car-bonnet thumping. Apart from a few minor incidents like these, however, the atmosphere inside and outside the hospital was quiet and accommodating.
The article also stated:
It was a good day for the pickets. To claps and cheers they turned away the majority of the non-emergency out patients. The hospital administrator admitted that the 1,000-bed teaching-hospital, the biggest in Leicestershire, was reduced to weekend coverage.
If that is the average of industrial action in the country, I think that the Opposition should do what we always did

in Opposition when there was industrial action in the National Health Service. We did not need to be challenged. When asked by Secretaries of State, from Barbara Castle onwards, Conservative Members always condemned industrial action in the National Health Service. So did the Labour Party until today—

Mr. Race: The Government are responsible.

Mr. Clarke: So did the Labour Party until the hon. Member for Stechford said that it did not condemn industrial action.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Minister for Health understand that the Opposition believe that for this Government to condemn the effects of industrial action in the National Health Service at this time is like President Galtieri condemning war in the Falkland Islands?

Mr. Clarke: The House will have to judge who is taking an extreme position. It has always been our position that, whatever people feel about the right level of pay in the Health Service, in something so vital as patient care there is no room for industrial action and responsible politicians should condemn it as politicians in the last Labour Government condemned it. They no longer do apparently.
I turn to the merits of the case. I do not want to trade figures with the hon. Member for Oldham, West whose use of figures is always elaborate. He has earned the reputation of using Meacherisms, which lead on into rather curious interpretations of pay claims.
The pay of nurses and midwives has moved ahead of inflation since the Government took office. The pay offer that we have made is fair and reasonable and in line with other groups of workers. The main argument between us—how the Government have dealt with the employees—has arisen from the attitude taken towards the settlements in 1979 and 1980 following the Clegg commission report. Those payments were made in 1979 and 1980. The resources were found by this Government. The previous Government made the promise, but we fulfilled the commitment. Workers' earnings increased as a result and we found the resources to pay for them. The details are set out in a written answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday 10 May. Over the past three years the average earnings of nursing sisters have increased by 63 per cent., staff nurses 60 per cent., nursing auxiliaries 49 per cent., full-time ancillary staff 52 per cent. for men and 51 per cent. for women. The retail price index has not moved ahead of that during that time.
The Opposition's position, when they say that that is not an adequate response to the problem, is somewhat weakened by their record. The Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party say that the answer is to have a pay policy.
During the last three or four years of the previous Government, when there was a pay policy, the real earnings of everyone employed in the Health Service actually fell until the 1979 dispute when the then Government offered a flat 5 per cent. to everybody and fought an extremely bitter industrial dispute which they resolved by setting up the Clegg commission.

Mr. Moyle: rose—

Mr. Clarke: We have a substantially better record since we came into office of moving nurses' pay ahead of inflation. The record of the right hon. Member for


Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) was a decline in the living standards of Health Service workers and it ended with an appalling dispute.

Mr. Moyle: If the Minister seeks to put the facts on record, will he not agree that on 22 January 1979 the Health Service employers' side offered 9 per cent. to the ancillary workers?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that was the final unsuccessful move that the Government made before setting up the Clegg commission. That is my recollection. The recollection of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East may be better than mine as he was in the thick of it. I should like to know whether his first commitment was to his union or to the Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to one of the offers made unsuccessfully during that dispute.
Another point has been made about increased expenditure. There ought to be a wider measure of agreement between us on that subject. Opposition Members must make their minds up about the purposes for which we increase expenditure on the Health Service and the way in which such increased expenditure is to be divided between improvements in patient care, on the one hand, and improvements in the living standards of the staff, on the other. Both are desirable objects, but there must be a balance between them in any policy pursued by the Government.
There should not be an issue between us over increased expenditure. Despite the recession and the difficulties of the past two or three years, the Government have not cut expenditure on the Health Service. It will have increased by 6 per cent., in real terms, by next year. That is in line with the plans that the previous Labour Government proposed. Total expenditure has reached about £12 billion.
The Government's case is that part of that increased expenditure must result in improved patient care, better wards and facilities, and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, shorter waiting lists in hospitals. The money has begun to show some improvement in that feature of the Health Service. The numbers on the waiting list have fallen from 752,000 in March 1979 to 628,000 in March 1981. One of the consequences of improving services for the patients in such a labour-intensive service is that one actually increases the numbers of staff and improves employment opportunities.
I dispute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). There was a real reduction in the hours worked in the Health Service. There has been an increase in the number of people in the Health Service. Our full-time equivalent is 34,000 for nurses. The figure of 47,000 for all staff still applies.
One of the effects—we insist upon this—of devoting a proportion of increased expenditure on the Health Service to improve patient care is that, if those plans are allowed to proceed, the number of staff employed in the Health Service over the next year would still increase. That has had the effect of producing an 80 per cent. increase in the pay bill while the Government have been in office. That is a combination of an increase in living standards for staff and improved services for patients.
The Opposition are in serious danger when they advocate that where there are increased resources available

for the Health Service—where we are broadly in agreement—they should go to improving the pay of the staff at present in post. That is impossible.

Mr. Pavitt: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I know that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has been in his seat throughout the debate, but I have only five minutes left.
I believe that the House must address itself to the important point, made by a number of hon. Members, that somehow it is wrong to draw a distinction in this or any other pay settlement or arrangement between, for example, nurses and midwives and any other staff group in the Health Service. The argument coming from Opposition Members, again sponsored by trade unions where the substantial body of the membership is ancillary workers, is that it is divisive to make any distinction between the various groups because they all form part of a health and care team.
I can think of no industry or service where one can actually adopt the principle that the present relativities and pay structure for all groups must be frozen rigid for all time so that one cannot react to the needs of the service and the need to recruit and retain the right level of trained and skilled—in this case—medical staff.
If we are ever to do anything substantial to raise the position of nurses and midwives in the earnings league, no progress will be made if, every time the Government—as this Government have attempted to do—want to make a special case of the nurses and find the extra money and offer them 6·4 per cent., exactly the same offer must be made to the gardeners, cooks, window cleaners, laundry workers, porters, and so on.
I defend the distinction that the Government have made purely on the ground of the needs of the Health Service. I believe that it is a distinction that is widely applauded in the country. We abandoned the first cash limits we set and found extra money to offer 6·4 per cent. to nurses and midwives and also to the professions supplementary to medicine, including the physiotherapists, radiographers, speech therapists and occupational therapists. It is wrong to argue that it should follow automatically that, whatever figure is arrived at for those professional groups, exactly the same money must be given to all the other groups in the Health Service. No service could be run on that basis.
I should like to comment not only on this offer, which I have defended and, I hope, made the Government's position clear, but on the Government's expectation for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) appeared to believe that we are breaking some kind of election commitment by not having sorted out better arrangements for the people employed in the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend said that the Government first offered a better and lasting arrangement in a letter from my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan). That letter was sent in the middle of 1980. That offer was reaffirmed at a meeting with the Prime Minister before Christmas 1981. Today I chaired the first substantial meeting that has taken place between all involved to achieve a new permanent arrangement. I am glad to say that all parties agreed on the desirability of a new permanent arrangement. All the unions which were represented, and the Government, too, desired to make rapid progress. That is the more constructive part of the Health Service.
Industrial action and the blind demand for 12 per cent. Coming from the Opposition Benches have no room in a modern Health Service.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 281.

Division No. 200]
[7.00 pm


NOES


Abse, Leo
Forrester,John


Adams, Allen
Foster, Derek


Allaun,Frank
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Alton, David
Freud,Clement


Anderson,Donald
Garrett, John (NorwichS)


Archer, RtHon Peter
George, Bruce


Ashley, RtHon Jack
Gilbert, RtHon DrJohn


Ashton,Joe
Ginsburg, David


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Graham, Ted


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, John (IslingtonC)


Barnett, RtHon Joel (H'wd)
Grimond, RtHonJ.


Benn, RtHon Tony
Hamilton,James(Bothwell)


Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'N)
Harrison, RtHon Walter


Bidwell,Sydney
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Booth, RtHon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'b'ro)
Heffer, ErlcS.


Bradley,Tom
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Brocklebank-Fowler.C.
HomeRobertson,John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley,Frank


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Horam,John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Howell, RtHon D.


Buchan,Norman
Howells,Geraint


Callaghan, RtHon J.
Hoyle,Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Huckfield, Les


Campbell,Ian
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cant, R. B.
Janner.HonGreville


Carmichael,Neil
Jay, RtHon Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)


Cartwright,John
John,Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)
Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)


Cohen,Stan ley
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Coleman,Donald
Kerr, Russell


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kilfedder, JamesA.


Conlan,Bernard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Lambie,David


Cowans, Harry
Lamborn,Harry


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Leadbitter,Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Leighton, Ronald


Crowther,Stan
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cunliffe,Lawrence
Litherland,Robert


Dalyell,Tam
Lofthouse,Geoffrey


Davidson.Arthur
Lyon,Alexander (Yorty)


Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Lyons, Edward (BradfdW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McCartney,Hugh


Deakins,Eric
McDonald, DrOonagh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone,Frank


Dewar,Donald
McGuire,Mlchael(Ince)


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dobson,Frank
McKelvey.William


Dormand,Jack
MacKenzie, RtHon Gregor


Douglas,Dick
Maclennan,Robert


Dubs,Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marks,Kenneth


Dunnett,Jack
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.
Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)


Eadie.Alex
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'nSE)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Maxton,John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Meacher,Michael


English,Michael
Mel lish, RtHon Robert


Ennals, RtHon David
Millan,RtHonBruce


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mitchell,Austin (Grimsby)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R.C.(Sotonltchen)


Ewing,Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field,Frank
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Flannery,Martin
Morris, RtHonJ. (Aberavon)


Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, RtHon Roland


Foot, RtHon Michael
Newens, Stanley





Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stoddart, David


Ogden,Eric
Strang, Gavin


O'Halloran, Michael
Straw,Jack


O'Neill,Martin
Summerskill,HonDrShirley


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Park, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Parker,John
Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)


Pendry,Tom
Tilley,John


Penhaligon,David
Tinn,James


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Torney,Tom


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Varley, RtHon Eric G.


Race, Reg
Wainwright, E.(DearneV)


Radice, Giles
Wainwright.R.(ColneV)


Richardson,Jo
Walker, RtHon H.(D'caster)


Roberts,Albert(Aformanton)
Watkins, David


Roberts,Allan(Bootle,)
Weetch, Ken


Roberts,Gwilym(Cannock)
Wellbeloved,James


Robertson,George
Welsh,Michael


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
White, Frank R.


Rodgers, RtHon William
White, J.(G'gowPollok)


Roper,John
Whitehead,Phillip


Ross, Ernest (Dundoe West)
Whitlock,William


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wig ley, Dafydd


Rowlands,Ted
Willey, RtHon Frederick


Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Sever, John
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Sheerman,Barry
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Sheldon, RtHonR.
Wilson, RtHon Sir H.(H'ton)


Shore, RtHon Peter
Wilson, William (C'trySE)


Short, Mrs Renee
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Woodall,Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woolmer,Kenneth


Silverman,Julius
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skinner,Dennis
Wright,Sheila


Snape, Peter
Young, David (BoltonE)


Soley,Clive



Spearing,Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. George Morton and


Stallard.A.W.
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)





NOES


Adley,Robert
Buck,Antony


Aitken,Jonathan
Budgen,Nick


Alexander,Richard
Bulmer,Esmond


Alison, RtHonMichael
Burden,SirFrederick


Ancram,Michael
Butcher,John


Arnold,Tom
Cadbury,Jocelyn


Aspinwall,Jack
Carlisle, John (LutonWest)


Atkins,Robert (PrestonN)
Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincin)


Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Channon, Rt. Hon, Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chapman,Sydney


Banks,Robert
Churchill,W.S.


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Bendall,Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett,SirFrederic(T'bay)
Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)


Benyon,Thomas(A'don)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Benyon.W.(Buckingham)
Cockeram,Eric


Best, Keith
CoIvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope,John


Biffen, RtHon John
Cormack, Patrick


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Corrie,John


Body, Richard
Costain,SirAlbert


Bonsor,SirNicholas
Cranborne,Viscount


Bottom ley, Peter (W'wich W)
Critchley,Julian


Bowden,Andrew
Crouch,David


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Dickens,Geoffrey


Braine,SirBernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright,Graham
Doug las-Hamilton, LordJ.


Brinton,Tim
Dover,Denshore


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunn, Robe rt(Dartford)


Brotherton,Michael
Du rant,Tony


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Scn)
Eden, RtHonSirJohn


Browne,John(Winchester)
Eggar,Tim


Bruce-Gardynejohn
Elliott,SirWilliam


Bryan, Sir Paul
Emery, Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon. A.
Eyre, Reginald






Faith, MrsSheila
Kimball,SirMarcus


Farr,John
Kitson,SirTimothy


Fell,SirAnthony
Knight,MrsJill


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knox, David


Finsberg,Geoffrey
Lamont,Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lang, Ian


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
Langford-Holt,SirJohn


Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles
Latham,Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence,Ivan


Forman,Nigel
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lee,John


Fox, Marcus
Lennox-Boyd,HonMark


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Gardner, Edward (SFylde)
Lewis,Kenneth (Rutland)


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant&amp; W'loo)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Glyn, DrAlan
Loveridge,John


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Luce, Richard


Goodhew,SirVictor
Lyell, Nicholas


Goodlad,Alastair
McCrindle, Robert


Gorst,John
Macfarlane,Neil


Gow, Ian
MacGregor,John


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
McNair-Wilson,M. (N'bury)


Greenway, Harry
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)
Madel, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
Major,John


Grist, Ian
Marlow.Antony


Grylls,Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Hamilton, Hon A.
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Hampson,DrKeith
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Hannam,John
Mayhew, Patrick


Haselhurst,Alan
Mellor,David


Hastings,Stephen
Meyer, SirAnthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller,Hal (B'grove)


Hawkins,Paul
Mills, lain(Meriden)


Hawksley,Warren
Mills, Peter (WestDevon)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbeil,Norman


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Heddle,John
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Monro,SirHector


Heseltine,RtHonMichael
Montgomery,Fergus


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moore,John


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)


Holland, Phttip (Carlton)
Morrison, HonC. (Devizes)


Hooson,Tom
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hordern,Peter
Mudd, David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Murphy,Christopher


Howell, BtHonD. (G'ldf'd)
Myles, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neale,Gerrard


Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)
Needham, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Nelson,Anthony


Irvine,BryantGodman
Newton,Tony


Irving,Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Jessel,Toby
Onslow,Cranley


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Jopling,RtHon Michael
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Richard (SWHerts)


Kaberry,SirDonald
Parkinson, RtHonCecil


Kellett-Bowman,MrsElaine
Patten,John(Oxford)


Kershaw,SirAnthony
Pawsey, James





Percival,Sirlan
Stewart,A.(EFtenfrewshire)


Peyton, RtHonJohn
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Pink, R.Bonner
Stokes,John


Pollock,Alexander
Stradling Thomas,J.


Porter,Barry
Tapsell, Peter


Prentice, RtHon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Price, Si r David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, RtHon Norman


Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris,Peter


Raison, RtHonTimothy
Thomas, RtHon Peter


Rathbone,Tim
Thompson,Donald


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thorne,Neil(llfordSouth)


Renton,Tim
Thornton,Malcolm


RhodesJames, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Townsend,CyrilD,(B'heath)


Ridley,HonNicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale,SirJulian
Trotter,Neville


Rifkind, Malcolm
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rippon,RtHonGeoffrey
Vaughan,DrGerard


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Rossi,Hugh
Wakeham,John


Rost, Peter
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Royle,SirAnthony
Walker, RtHon P.(W'cester)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sainsbury,HonTimothy
Walker-Smith, RtHon Sir D.


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)
Ward,John


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Warren,Kenneth


Shepherd,Colin(Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd,Richard
WelIs,John (Maidstone)


Shersby,Michael
Wheeler,John


Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, RtHon William


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Raymond


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wickenden,Keith


Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)
Williams.D.(Monfgomery)


Speller, Tony
Wolfson,Mark


Spence,John
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)
Younger, RtHon George


Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)



Squire,Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Steen,Anthony
Mr. Carol Mather.


Stevens,Martin

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House deplores any industrial action in the National Health Service especially that which puts at risk the health and safety of patients; notes that present offers will give increases of over six per cent to about half the work force in a service which enjoys secure and growing employment; and urges the trade unions to reconsider their position before taking any further action which could damage the National Health Service and the patient it serves.

Orders of the Day — London Transport (Liverpool Street) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: It is my pleasure to sponsor the Bill on behalf of the London Transport Executive. The Bill relates to work that is to be carried out by British Rail in redeveloping the Liverpool Street site, which is in my constituency. The hon. Member for City of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is not in a position to move the Bill on behalf of the LTE and I have agreed to do so for him.
It will assist the House if I go through the Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Will hon. Members who are talking behind the Bar kindly leave the Chamber?

Mr. Brown: Part I is the interpretation and the incorporation of general Acts. Part II sets out in paragraphs (a) and (b) in clause 4(1) the work to be done. The lands in respect of which compulsory acquisition powers are sought are delineated in the deposited plan which can be seen in the Library.
Clause 5 seeks authority for the acquisition of easements or subsoil instead of land. I am advised that there is nothing unusual about it.
Clause 6 adapts the Lands Clauses Acts to the acquisition of the subsoil easements. Clause 7 authorises temporary interference with so much of Liverpool Street, Old Broad Street and the Broad Street Buildings, as is within the limits of deviation, for the purposes of constructing new stations.
Clause 8 authorises the LTE temporarily to divert traffic from the same length of the streets specified in clause 7 during the carrying out of work, subject to subsection (2) which ensures that there shall be reasonable access for foot passengers.
Clause 10 incorporates earlier LTE legislation containing common form powers relating to the construction of the works. Clause 11 incorporates certain protective provisions taken from previous LTE legislation.
Clause 12 seeks to modify, in certain minor respects, the planning permission which, without this clause, would automatically be given by a combination of the Bill, if enacted, and paragraph 12 of schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. The principal modification is to subject the planning permission to a time limit. Unless each of the works is begun within 12 years of the planning of the Act, the planning permission for that work will cease to have effect. That provision is contained in clause 12(2).
Clause 12(3), however, ensures that the time limit does not apply to carrying out works of alteration, maintenance, repair and substitution where it is necessary from time to time. That provision reflects section 16 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 which applies to the new stations by reason of clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 are common clauses usually included in private Bills.
That completer; the summary of the Bill which I trust has assisted the House. I now turn to the petitioners. There were three petitioners on this part of the Bill, arising from which hon. Gentlemen blocked the Bill. These were Vinross Catering of 22–23 Liverpool Street, K Shoes of 24 Liverpool Street and the florist at 26 Liverpool Street. I understand that these petitioners fear that the erection of hoardings outside their shop fronts will make them less visible and keep customers away.
I have visited the site to examine the proposals. Numbers 17 to 33 Liverpool Street cover a short length of the road with shops on the south side and railway offices and a hotel on the north side. The road is one way only with parking on both sides of the street. As a result, the shops and their: merchandise can be examined only by people walking in front of the shops on the south side of Liverpool Street. That facility will remain during the whole period of the work, which is estimated to be about two years from the expected starting date of 1984. AI no time will the pavement in front of the shops be obstructed and customers, likely customers or window shoppers will have free access to view the shops, enter and make their purchases.
K Shoes has an advantage over the other two shops in that the shop has an entrance in Liverpool Street and also in the covered shopping arcade at the rear of the shops. The House will appreciate that shoppers and pedestrians use the arcade mach more than Liverpool Street because of the comfort of shopping. There is an infinitely greater number of shops to be seen and there is an entrance to the Underground at each end of the arcade. In inclement weather pedestrians and shoppers prefer to go through the arcade in the dry than round the outside of Liverpool Street.
The hoarding will be erected in the kerb. At the request of the petitioners, it will be solid only up to a height of 6 ft and wire mesh will be erected a further 5 ft above so that daylight can get through. The object of the hoarding is to safeguard pedestrians while work is in progress.
At any one time, a stretch of only 100 ft of Liverpool Street in front of the shops will be hoarded up. To satisfy the City corporation, the promoters have agreed to carry out the work on half the width of the road at any one time, thereby leaving Liverpool Street open to traffic. As each 100 ft length is completed., the hoarding will be taken down and moved to the next stretch of 100 ft. It is estimated that work on each stretch will take about three months. About 300 ft of the south side of Liverpool Street will be affected and three stretches of work will be carried out. Although each section will be boarded up for only three months, it will be nine months before all the work is completed.
Work on the north side in front of the railway offices will also be completed in three stages and will take three months for each stage. Therefore, work on both sides of the street will be completed in 18 months. I stress that, as the hoarding is taken down from one stretch, it will be moved to another, as a result of which the shops that were affected will be free of it.
When I visited the site, a mass of scaffolding had been erected along the frontage of the shops numbered 19 to 31 Liverpool Street. I understand that it was erected in May 1982 and resulted from the issuing of a dangerous structure notice. The licence to erect the scaffolding expires at the end of July. As I looked across from the north side, the fascia board of the K Shoes shop was totally obscured by


the scaffolding and could not be read or seen. Because of the cars and vans parked on the south side of the road, it was impossible to see the shop in any detail.
In any event, the scaffolding makes it extremely difficult to walk along the pavement, and that is not made any easier by the fact that the florist uses about 3 ft of the public pavement to display merchandise. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no claim for compensation has been submitted, yet interference with shopping is very much greater than anything that will be experienced by the work envisaged in the Bill. Fortunately, the promoters have helped the florist obtain a licence of assign and change of use for an empty shop in the arcade. It is larger than the existing premises and will enable the florist to be located in the arcade, where it has always wanted to be.
The promoters have offered to agree the following principles: first, to use their best endeavours not to carry out noisy work that would interfere with the business carried on in a particular shop during usual business hours; secondly, to preserve uninterrupted a minimum width of footway outside the shops of not less than 2 metres when they are open for business, except in emergencies; thirdly, to consult with an engineer appointed by the petitioners jointly as to the measures to be taken to avoid damage to the buildings without so far as practicable the LTE having to enter upon them; fourthly, subject to the consent of the highway authority to exhibit in a conspicuous place hoardings and direction signs stating the name of the occupier behind the hoarding, the nature of his business and how to get into his premises. In the case of K shoes, the address of its entrance in the arcade will also be given. Fifthly, they will be subject also to the consent of the highway authority to erect hoardings which, if above a height of 1½ metres, consist of wire mesh. Sixthly, a resident engineer will be appointed who will be furnished with a copy of the undertaking, will be readily available to receive complaints and will have power to instruct the executive's contractors to alleviate them if he is satisfied that some of the provisions of the undertaking have been broken. Seventhly, in the event of the executive having to take possession of any of the premises of the petitioners in order to preserve their stability, they will compensate the petitioners on the basis of the estimated loss of profits—in other words, compensation for disturbance.
I believe that the executive has attempted to consult in the widest sense. It has shown itself willing to discuss any representations and to make every endeavour to find a satisfactory solution to any problems that arise. It is therefore with confidence that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
7.26 pm

Mr. Mark Lennox—Boyd: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who has done his duty by presenting the Bill. However, I do not agree with many of the suggestions that he made and I should like to touch on a few of them.
I speak from a constituency interest. K Shoe Shops Ltd. is perhaps the most shining of the many jewels that adorn the Chief Whip's crown. The company comes from Kendal, has factories throughout Cumbria and one in the Lancaster area employing 120 people, some of whom must be my constituents.
I understand that the Chief Whip knows what I shall say and, indeed, wishes me to do so. I also understand that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) is unable to be present, but that he is equally anxious to support any action that will help maintain the interests of K Shoes because of its significant contribution to the economy of Cumbria.
Of course the Bill should get a Second Reading. No one who has reservations about it would wish to deny it a Second Reading, but I wish to draw to the attention of the House—and the Committee that will consider it in due course—to various matters that must be considered in further detail.
The problem for K Shoes in Liverpool Street is one of severe disruption. I too, visited the shop and am on a par with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. I disagree with his observations. We are talking of a major construction site, and the work will take place over a two-year period. Enormous trenches will be dug into the road. As the hon. Gentleman said, they will be 100 ft long, and on occasions during that construction period they will be a few feet from the front shop window of K Shoes. It is astonishing to suggest that in no way will its business be undermined by the disruption that will inevitably take place. The noise, dirt, heat and unpleasantness must surely inhibit a customer from going to that shop.
I shall not pursue that argument much further, as it must be argued in Committee. It is not for us to consider today. Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, it leads to another argument. The shop has been there for 70 years. It wishes to carry on its business there. It does not wish to move, and it does not wish to be required to go elsewhere. It has been told and given the undertaking that the promoter—the London Transport Executive—will not try to occupy its premises unless it needs to do so for the construction works. It has been told that it will receive the compensation only if the promoter has to occupy the premises for the construction works. Therefore, it will not be entitled under the law, or under any undertaking that has been given by the promoter, to any compensation for a loss of profit that it might suffer.
Let us hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch is right when he says that the shop will not suffer damage. That is extremely unlikely. However, if that is the case, and if suffering damage is merely a foolish fear that the shop entertains, it costs the London Transport Executive nothing to give the undertaking that it will protect the shop from any loss of profit and give it the compensation that it needs.
It is sometimes said—I expect that it will be said in Committee—that it would be inappropriate to give such an undertaking, as the law of the land does not require any person who constructs a major work or building to compensate someone who is injuriously affected in circumstances such as this, so why should the London Transport Executive do so? My answer—the Committee should consider the matter carefully—is that the law is wrong. There should be a provision in law to give people compensation when they are injuriously affected by building works that take place on their doorsteps.
While the Bill, being special and of limited and specialist concern, would not be the appropriate vehicle to provide redress to people who are injuriously affected generally, it is one that the London Transport Executive must see passed before it can commence work. Therefore,


Parliament is, in this case, able to protect people who are likely to suffer from the consequences of the building work—and Parliament should do so.
Although I wish the Bill to receive a Second Reading, it raises deeply sceptical eyebrows. K Shoes is struggling at the moment, like so many manufacturing companies —especially those in the clothing and footwear industries. It is struggling against competition from imported shoes. It is an unusual business with both manufacturing and retailing companies. It manufactures its shoes in its factories and sells them in its shops. It is worth noting, in today's climate, that about 85 per cent. of the shoes that are sold in its shops are manufactured by the company. Moreover, about 90 per cent. of the shoes that are sold in its shops are made in Britain. The consequence of undermining the profitability or, indeed, destroying the business, if it came to that, of this one shop is not simply that the shop is put out of business. There will be repercussions in terms of the jobs of the company that makes the shoes.
I hope that my comments will be observed by the Committee. It would be outrageous if the shop—one of K Shoes' important outlets—had its business ruined, and thereby the more general business of the company was threatened and undermined.

Mr. Reg Race: It is somewhat unusual for the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and me to combine to oppose a Private Member's Bill, but oppose it we must for the simple reason that both of us have constituents who are affected by the proposed improvements to Liverpool Street Underground station.
The constituents whom I represent are the proprietors of the arcade florists who occupy premises in Liverpool Street and will be directly affected by the Bill. I welcome the purpose of the Bill. As a London Member of Parliament I travel frequently on the Underground. I frequently pass through Liverpool Street Underground interchange. I can vouch, as can every other London Member of Parliament, for the inadequacy and ancient facilities of that interchange. I have absolutely no quarrel with the general purpose of the Bill. I wish it a fair hearing and hope that it becomes law.
The only point of substance about which I am worried is the way in which my constituents are injuriously affected by the proposed works. The florist shop has been run for 32 years and continues to be run by two small shopkeepers—Mrs. Bayard and Mr. Parker. They have petitioned against the Bill. They obtain most of their trade from local businesses—banks, offices, insurance companies—and passing trade. They are completely dependent on the shop for their survival. They have no other source of income. They have no other shops or financial interests. They are extremely vulnerable. Any reduction of trade in their shop will undoubtedly reduce their personal incomes. We are, therefore, discussing a potential mischief for those individuals—the prospect of a substantial reduction in their personal income.
The significant point is that according to the undertakings that have been offered to my constituents and to K Shoes part III(2)(a) of the undertaking links compensation to loss of profits, but only on the basis of occupation of the premises concerned. In other words, compensation would be calculated by the London

Transport Executive and no doubt, agreed with my constituents and K Shoes, if the premises were occupied but not otherwise.
That leads me to question the works themselves. If the works were fairly trivial, it would not matter that compensation was to be given only if a shop was occupied. That is not so. The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lonsdale and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) have stated plainly that there is to be a major work across the entire width of Liverpool Street and down virtually its entire length. Et is to be a major excavation. There is to be a complete reconstruction of an Underground station, just below the level of the road. A substantial quantity of soil will have to be removed. There will be much machinery in the street simply to do the necessary work. No one disputes that. There will be hoardings of 11 ft in height—6 ft of wooden hoarding topped by 5 ft of wire mesh. That will obscure the entire road. Only the footpath between the shop and the hoarding will remain.
There can be no question but that that is indeed a major work in that street. Therefore, it is not correct, especially in the case of one shop where the proprietors depend entirely on its profits for their income, for London Transport to say that they should be compensated for injury and nuisance only if the shop is occupied. The shop may well be occupied for a brief period. London Transport may have to drill through the floor up into the shop to undertake test borings or to reinforce structures that it is establishing underground. In that case, compensation will no doubt be paid.
The real problem for my constituents, however, is that these major works will continue for nine months or a year. Let us hope that the period is indeed as short as that, as many of us believe that construction work is never completed on time. Even if the work is completed on time, however, it will take nine months to a year. That may be the major part of a trading year for my constituents.
The possibility of a real reduction in my constituents' living standards in that year must therefore be taken extremely seriously. Figures have been produced, and no doubt will be adduced in Committee, about the reduction in trade consequent on major works being carried out in the vicinity of particular shops. K Shoe Shops has stated that a certain reduction in profits took place as a result of work conducted around other shops in its chain. I have no doubt that when the case is presented to the Committee counsel will refer to any such prospective reductions. I believe that the reductions may be extremely substantial, especially as they would all be concentrated on the earnings of one shop.
We are dealing not with a substantial change in English law but with a private Bill that is opposed. We are dealing with one shopkeeper and one chain of shopkeepers who are injuriously affected. We are not asking for a substantial change in the law to make compensation payable on a different basis in every case. We ask that consideration be given to a change in compensation in this particular case because, in my view, it is clearly established that great injury will be done to the individuals concerned.
I simply say to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that, according to my information, my constituents are not satisfied with the offer of alternative accommodation that has been made, for the following reason. They appreciate the effort made to meet some of


their objections to the Bill, but in their opinion they could use the alternative accommodation only for storage and could not sell from it.
My constituents have also drawn my attention to the fact that this is not the first occasion on which their business has been disrupted by the activities of London Transport, justified or otherwise. In the very recent past, London Transport enforced their departure from a previous shop, at 12 The Arcade, EC2. Just before London Transport asked them to leave, my constituents had refitted the shop at great personal expense, having been there for 28 years.
They were given notice to quit under the terms of the lease and I understand that there is no suggestion that anything improper was done by London Transport. Having been at their present premises for only three or four years, they are now to be disrupted again and the activities of London Transport, which are ultimately for the public good, will for the second time in a very short period disrupt my constituents' livelihoods.
In a letter sent to me some months ago before the Bill reached the Floor of the House, Mrs. Bayard said:
Our present premises were obtained at great expense, and needless to say we are just managing to get some return on our money. We are now forced once again0 to lose everything. My partner and I are not so young and will not be in a position financially to start again, especially as this is the second time in three years that we have been placed in this invidious position.
I appreciate the efforts that have been made to meet some of the points made by my constituents and by K Shoe Shops. Nevertheless, further substantial progress must be made to meet the simple point that compensation should be paid to my constituents on the basis of loss of trade and not simply if London Transport occupies the premises. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, but I hope that this point will be considered very carefully in Committee and that substantial concessions will be made in order to avoid real hardship.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): It might assist the House if I intervene briefly at this stage to give an indication of the Government's views on the Bill.
The Government have no objection in principle to the powers which the London Transport Executive seeks in the Bill—so long as the powers are strictly limited to those necessary to undertake the works in question. Nevertheless, I understand the concern that has been expressed about the possible effects of the works on the businesses operating in premises in Liverpool Street—particularly the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) with regard to K Shoe Shops Ltd. and those raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) with regard to his constituents, the florists.
It might assist the House if I say something about the provisions for compensation payments in respect of loss of profits. It is, of course, well-established practice for private Bills conferring land acquisition powers to apply the standard compensation code, which reflects the development of practice and judicial thinking over many years.
Clause 3 incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts. The effect of this is that the established body of statute and case

law generally known as the compensation code will apply to the acquisition of land under the powers sought in the Bill. Where business premises are acquired, I understand that it is open to the owners or lessees of the property to claim compensation reflecting not only the market value of their interest in the land but also, in appropriate cases, loss of profits and other expenses arising from the disturbance of their businesses.
I am advised, however, that the compensation code does not provide for disturbance-only compensation to be paid to persons affected by public works on neighbouring land if their own land is not taken for the purpose, unless the execution of the works causes damage to trade or business, which as a result leads to depreciation in the value of an interest in land. In those circumstances, compensation can then be paid for the depreciation in value of the interest in the land even where no land is actually being taken from the owner or lessee.
It will be of further interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale and the hon. Member for Wood Green to know that there are other statutory provisions—for example, section 22 of the third schedule to the Water Act 1945, section 278 of the Public Health Act 1936 and sections 76 and 77 of the Highways Act 1980—in which there is entitlement to compensation for damage due to works carried out by statutory bodies on public highways. In these circumstances, damage has been held by the courts to include loss of profits to businesses on land other than that which may have been acquired.
In all the circumstances disclosed by the debate this evening, it would appear to be reasonable that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. That is on the understanding, and for the purpose, that the Bill, and all the points causing concern that have been raised this evening—compensation and restriction upon interference—shall be examined in detail in Committee. I hope that it will be possible to agree with the petitioners over practical ways to minimise the impact of the works on their businesses.
I fully appreciate the nature of the various concerns that have been expressed. I believe that the Committee will provide the forum necessary for the detailed examination of those matters. On that basis, I hope that the House will think it appropriate that the Bill should be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Albert Booth: In considering the Second Reading of the Bill, the House is called upon to examine a serious conflict of interests. Normally, one would always say that the broader public interest should prevail. However, we cannot simply take the view that in allowing the broader public interest to prevail one should ignore or ride roughshod over the private, commercial or personal interests of those affected by any major public works.
Public interest can be broadly described by saying that if British Rail and London Transport are allowed to proceed with the works covered by the Bill, a substantial contribution will be made to the lot of many commuters who use British Rail and London Transport by way of services that go to Liverpool Street every day. I hope that the majority of hon. Members would want to see such an improvement in that area of London Transport's and British Rail's services.
The conflict is that raised by the petitioners and voiced eloquently in the House tonight. It is the fear that, in the process of making those improvements for travellers, certain businesses will be ruined. Strangely, I declare a constituency interest. I do so only because I am regarded in the House as a transport spokesman. K Shoe Shops Ltd. has a factory at Askam in my constituency and I believe that a number of the ladies' shoes that are sold in the shop are made in Askam. I confess to being only too keenly aware of the fact that the shoe trade, and that particular factory, works short time and under pressure because of a restriction of its outlets, brought about in no small measure by the admittance into Britain of cheap imports. The situation will not be alleviated if there is a further loss due to the damage to trade at this particular shop.
As the Minister has rightly said, there is a standard type of compensation clause in the Bill. It is worth noting that there has been litigation on this type of legislation. In a leading case on the subject of compensation, which arose out of similar circumstances—Argyle Motors v Birkenhead Corporation—Lord Dilhorne said:
It may well be that the execution of authorised works has inflicted a loss on the appellants which far exceeds the amount of compensation obtainable by them for injurious affection to their interest in the land on which they conduct their business. If that is so, they will suffer a hardship for which the law as it now stands does not provide a remedy. Extension of the right to compensation is a matter for Parliament and not for judicial decision.
I do not always agree with Law Lords, but I agree entirely with that last sentence. This is a matter for Parliament. It is not a matter for judicial decision. It is not a matter on which we want to make general law, but a matter on which a special legal provision should be made that reflects the special circumstances of the case. Therefore, I join those who express the hope that in passing the Bill we do not do so because we think that it should go through the House unchanged, but in the belief that by passing its Second Reading we will commend it to a Committee which will examine carefully all the special circumstances that led to the promotion of the Bill and which will consider whether a special compensation provision needs to be attached to it before it has further consideration in the Chamber of the House.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wish to mention the importance of Liverpool Street station to my constituents. My constituency was, to a large extent, borne out of the railway line that runs from Liverpool Street towards Colchester.
At the end of the last century various developers were given the opportunity to have railway stations constructed along the line. The railway company of the day required house developers to guarantee ticket office receipts of about £2,000 a year from each station for a period of five years before they would agree to construct each railway station. The builders in their turn then built most of the houses that now form part of my constituency. The train service that was provided from Ilford, Seven Kings nd Chadwell Heath gave large numbers of my constituents and their predecessors opportunity to travel quickly into the City, and this provided much of the clerical and managerial support for the City of London.
I wish to welcome the introduction of the Bill and its Second Reading. In doing so, I must make a comment in

support of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race). My experience of British Rail in property matters leaves a lot to be desired. I had an unhappy experience as chairman of the central area board of the GLC. British Rail was extremely awkward, difficult and completely urco-operative.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the Bill does not deal with British Rail. It is the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Bill.

Mr. Thorne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I feel that this has a bearing on the issue. It is important that the whole matter is tied together as quickly as possible for the benefit of everyone concerned. I hope that in the negotiations in Committee it will be borne in mind that a little generosity by way of compensation can be extremely helpful in advancing the matter. It can save a lot of time where large capital expenditure is being held up. I often find that large undertakings tend to hold up such matters over relatively small sums, when the matter could be progressed mere quickly if they could only see the advantage of agreeing reasonable compensation.
Therefore, I hope that that matter will be carefully looked into and that the Bill will receive its Second reading and quickly pass into law. We shall then have a new combined station .at Liverpool Street of which we can all be proud.

8 pm

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Given the last point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), it should be borne in mind that the Bill assumes the success of the British Rail Bill currently before the Opposed Bills Committee. This Bill is concomitant with that development. If that development does not take place, neither will this.
I hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their support. However, the British Rail side of the work must take place first. No one knows what the future holds for K Shoe Shops Ltd. However, the shop in question has two trading entrances. No doubt the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) saw what I saw. Many people were shopping in one K Shoe shop from the arcade. The number of those from Liverpool Street was much smaller and those in the street were passers-by rather than shoppers. Therefore, I do not understand why it should be suggested that the whole emporium of K Shoes will be brought to its knees because a hoarding is to be placed outside the shop for three months. I do not wish to argue the point, but I should not like it to be thought that the promoters of the Bill had deliberately forgotten the primary importance of the interests of those involved.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If K Shoes is not to suffer any damage, it will not cost the promoters anything to indicate that compensation will be available if there is damage. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?

Mr. Brown: I merely wish to establish that there is more trade from the arcade than from Liverpool Street. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the shop's presentation is oriented towards the arcade, and Liverpool Street is almost its back door.
I was delighted when the Minister said that he wished to take a close interest in the compensation factor. I hope


that he will not use the Bill as the only vehicle for changing the law about compensation. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said that the law should be changed. But the Bill is not the vehicle for that. I welcome the Minister's view and take it that he is serious. I take it that there will be a change in the law on compensation.
Local government will have to be brought into this. No doubt the Secretary of State for the Environment will be involved, because the whole procedure of local government for dealing with road works, sewers and pipelines will be changed. There will be enormous ramifications. That is why such action has not been taken.
I hope that the Bill will not be used to do something that should be undertaken in general law, but I am delighted that the Minister is interested in the issue.

Mr. Race: Whatever the merits of changing the law generally, surely the hon. Gentleman, as an experienced parliamentarian, must accept that that possibility is not before us. We are dealing with a specific Bill concerning one street in London in which injury will probably be caused to a few people. That involves a quite different principle from a general change in the law.

Mr. Brown: That does not alter the fact that if the law is wrong, it is unreasonable to wait for a private Bill in order to take action. The Minister has said that he is concerned about the compensation and I welcome his interest. The Government can introduce legislation to put a new measure into force that would take account of such factors, and I doubt whether the House would hold up such a provision.
I tried hard to get information from the promoters about the position of the florist. Having seen the shop, I accept what has been said. However, there is nothing to stop anyone from walking in front of the shop as it is. It is impossible to walk in the road, because lorries, cars and vans are parked there. Instead of the lorries, vans and cars parked in front of the florist there will be a temporary hoarding. I hope that the suggestion about the delay is wrong, but the hoarding will only be temporary, while the cars, vans and lorries are there every day of the week. Therefore, they form a barrier anyway. The promoters are doing nothing to hinder the walkthrough. Throughout the work there will be no change in that situation.
The best information that I have is that the shop in the arcade is still the subject of negotiations by the owners of the florist's. I understand that we are talking, not about an extension for storage, but about a new shop. The promoters have leant over backwards to do everything possible to help. However, I am grateful to the House for its support. All hon. Members have voiced the hope that outstanding matters can be considered in Committee. I stress that the work is complementary to the main work to be carried out in Liverpool Street—British Rail's development of Liverpool Street station and the hotel. Finally. I am grateful to the House for welcoming the Bill

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — Members of Parliament (Salaries, Allowances and Travel Facilities)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1982 should be at the following yearly rates—

(1) £14,510 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and
(2) £8,460 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that it will be convenient to take, at the same time, the following motions: No. 3,
That the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1982 should be at the following yearly rates—

(1) £14,510 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and
(2) £8,460 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.
No. 4,
That, in the opinion of this House, the limits specified in the Resolution of this House of 5 June 1981 in relation to the allowances payable in connection with a Member's office, secretarial and research expenses should be raised so as to make the limits—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the Resolution (allowance in respect of aggregate amount of general office expenses and expenses on secretarial and research assistance), £8,752 for the year ending 31 March 1983 and £8,820 for any subsequent year; and
(b) in paragraph (b) of that Resolution (provision for enabling a Member to make pension contributions in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him), £875 for the year ending 31 March 1983 and £882 for any subsequent year.
No. 5,
That in the opinion of this House, the facilities available to the spouse of a Member of this House for free travel in accordance with the Resolutions of this House of 7 April 1971 and 22 July 1975 on journeys within paragraph (a) or (b) of the said Resolution of 7 April 1971 should be extended to children of the Member under the age of 18; but any child's journey in respect of which facilities for free travel are provided in accordance with this Resolution should count against the number of journeys for which facilities for free travel are available to the Member's spouse.
For the purposes of this Resolution a Member's children shall be taken to include step-children, adopted children, foster children and any other child living as one of the Member's family.
No. 6,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 27 May, be approved.
No. 7,
That this House—

(a) welcomes the Report of the Select Committee on Members' salaries which was ordered by this House to be printed on 17 February 1982;
(b) agrees with the recommendation in that Report that a review of Members' pay be conducted by the Review Body on Top Salaries once during the fourth year of each Parliament and that, where a shortened Parliament precludes this, the Review Body should carry out a new review not later than four years after the rates of salary consequent on the previous review first became payable;
(c) agrees with the view expressed in that Report that, between such reviews, Members' salaries should be adjusted annually by reference to increases in outside salaries, but does not accept the recommendation that


there should be an annual automatic adjustment by reference to figures taken from the Department of Employment's New Earnings Survey;
(d) is of opinion that her Majesty's Government should instead, in the period between one such review and the next, move annual motions to effect changes in Members' salaries and in so doing should be guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups in the Public Service over a relevant period.
Before calling upon the Leader of the House to move the first of the six motions, I have to inform the House that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) has asked permission to move amendment (b) to motion No. 2 and amendments (a) and (c) to motion No. 4 with figures differing slightly from those shown on the Order Paper. The proposed alteration in motion No. 4 would also involve two further amendments to that motion. Mr. Speaker has decided that it would be in the interests of the House to allow this to be done. Revised copies of pages 2864 and 2865 of the Order Paper have accordingly been placed in the Vote Office and a revised list of selected amendments has been placed in the Lobby.

Mr. Edward du Cann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House will appreciate your ruling, which is no doubt satisfactory from everyone's point of view. However, I wish to ask about the position at the conclusion of the debate. I do not know whether it is proposed to have any Divisions, but if so, would we take all the motions seriatim?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall take them in that manner. Matters are complicated when we debate motions together, but the Chair will make the subject of the Division clear.

Mr. du Cann: I am much obliged. That is precisely the point that I had in mind.

Mr. Biffen: We have to consider tonight two separate but related issues, one short-term and one long-term. The short-term issue concerns the increase in hon. Members' pay, in the secretarial allowance and in Ministers' pay in 1982. I shall deal with these matters first. The long-term issue concerns the way that hon. Members' pay is to be settled in future. It is an issue on which we have the report by the Select Committee on hon. Members' Salaries to assist us.
I have already told the House about the Government's proposals for 1982, in answer to a parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee). In the absence of recommendations by the Top Salaries Review Body this year, we considered that it was reasonable to increase hon. Members pay, hon. Members' secretarial and research assistance allowance and Ministers' pay by 4 per cent. each, in line with the pay factor included in Estimates. The reason why the TSRB was not asked to review hon. Members' pay and allowances this year is that at the time we would have had to make the request the Select Committee was still considering Members' pay and we did not wish to prejudge its conclusions. The Government's proposals are not generous, but in the circumstances—realism creeps through from time to time—I do not consider that they are unreasonable.
Turning briefly to the specific motions, hon. Members will see that there are two dealing with their 1982 pay increase. The first is an amendable expression of opinion. The second bears the Queen's Recommendation and the

amounts on it cannot be increased. The House may recall from previous debates that the second motion is required because an effective resolution of the House is necessary to increase Exchequer contributions to the Members' pension fund and to increase the pay of the United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly in line with that of Members of the House. The effect of these motions would be to increase the pay of ordinary Members to £14,510 with effect from 13 June, and the parliamentary salary of Ministers and other office holders to £8,460.
The motion on the secretarial allowance increases the maximum of the allowance in a full year to £8,820, with a further £882 available to enable an hon. Member to make pension contributions for his or her employee.
It might be helpful for the general structure of the debate if at this point I were to comment on the amendments which give an alternative option to the House. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) would increase that sum by 6 per cent. Any chosen: figure is a matter of value judgment and a degree of arbitrariness. It would be appropriate for the House to stay with a proposal which is related to the pay factor in the Estimates and if this were to be seen to be leading to any significant fall in equitable levels of pay it would be subject to subsequent investigation and remedy by recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body.
The other amendments which have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Deptford and his associates concern the office, secretarial and research allowance. The amendments propose that there should be an increase of 8 per cent., double that which is proposed by the Government. That figure, however chosen, bears a certain arbitrary implication, but I cannot find it appropriate to recommend to the House a figure that is double that of the pay factor in the Estimates and which is a touch above the general level of settlement in both private and public sectors.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a proportion of the amount that is provided for secretarial and research allowances goes o a other things which have little to do with pay; they are to do with purchases? Purchases can be far more directly related to the rise in the cost of living. Within that global figure, would it not have been better to have included some component to cover purchases and the substantially greater increases that relate to them?

Mr. Biffen: Once one moves into that territory, the index that one would choose for purchases would not necessarily be the retail price index. It might be the index of wholesale prices. We would be in difficult territory if we began to base the argument on the refined statistical indices that could be secured for that fraction—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Biffen: —of the total spending on the office, secretarial and research assistance allowance which went to the purchase of goods and services.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for jumping up rather precipitately. Would he not think it fair if a different allowance were made to Members' secretaries who serve only one Member and who are relatively underpaid compared with those who serve two, three or even four Members, who are in some cases grossly overpaid? Should there not be some differential?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an important point which should not be squeezed into the reply that I was giving to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). All hon. Members must be profoundly conscious that broadly speaking we have a uniform system of allowances and yet immensely individual patterns of expenditure.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a platitude.

Mr. Biffen: It may be a platitude but, my God, it is probably the truest thing that will be said this evening.
All these matters should be considered further by the Top Salaries Review Body. I would far sooner that the study and the determination was undertaken by an organisation with an arm's length relationship with the House than that the House were to be seen obviously voting its emoluments and fringe benefits. When I come to the long-term considerations in the second part of my speech, I will touch upon the prospects of the Top Salaries Review Body being able to undertake just such a study that can reflect upon the problems that were mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The right hon. Gentleman has just expressed the fervent view that it was better that the Top Salaries Review Body should deal with our salaries at arm's length than for the House to deal with the matter itself. Will he give an undertaking that in future all the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body will be automatically accepted? Is not the alternative that the House should make up its own mind on the Government's advice?

Mr. Biffen: There has to be an almost Augustinian approach to virtue in these matters. That is the ideal to which one aspires and I would have hoped that the experience of recent years might consolidate the view that this is something which for the future ought to be observed more faithfully than it has been in the past.

Mr. Michael English: rose—

Mr. John Silkin: rose—

Mr. Biffen: Without wishing to be obsequious to Privy Councillors, the right hon. Member for Deptford was first on his feet.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I give way to the hon. Gentelman.

Mr. English: Saint Augustine was the man who said "Lord make me chaste but not yet."

Mr. Silkin: I shall leave the Lord President of the Council further unbattered if I may, because there has been a number of interventions.

Mr. Biffen: I am glad that fraternity is still working.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the House is to vote for this sort of recommendation which is tied to Government expenditure or Estimates some months ago, would it not be far better for us to determine in the autumn of the previous year our increase from 13 June? We would be setting an example rather than trying to set an example after most other pay has been settled. Secondly, should not a Top Salaries Review Body report at least be put to the House so that we can vote on it rather than it being modified by the Government and left as a take-it-or-leave-it issue?

Mr. Biffen: I shall answer my hon. Friend's point about the timing of the Government's figure. This is intended to be for this year only. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that the motions before the House are designed to get away from that position for the future. He has made a fair point about the timing, but I am sorry that this year I have to present the position as it is.
I did not entirely appreciate my hon. Friend's second point about the Top Salaries Review Body.

Mr. Bottomley: My point was that it might not be possible for the Government to accept that the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body should be enacted. Would the Government consider and ensure that the recommendation is put to the House so that they could then try to lead as many as wanted to away from it rather than forbidding even the possibility of its being enacted?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is asking me to anticipate the second part of my speech. However, at the end of the day the figure that is presented to the House is amendable. Therefore, if the House wishes to amend it in accordance with the review body's recommendation it is open to it to do so. That has always been the position.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Biffen: No, I shall not give way now.

Mr. Cunningham: I should be most grateful on this point.

Mr. Biffen: I know that the hon. Gentleman would be, but I wish to complete the reference to the amendments. I do not think that I have indicated any unwillingness to give way. However, I have a responsibility to the House more generally to make a speech with some degree of structure as well as satisfying those who enjoy the blood sport of pursuing the Leader of the House in these circumstances.
The other amendment, which is quite an innovation, is the proposition that there should be a London weighting allowance for secretaries. The view has always been taken hitherto that a cash payment should be made and that how that is used in respect of secretarial services, either in London or in the provinces, or as between equipment and the employment of persons, should be left to the Member's discretion. Once the House begins to make judgments on how expenditures should be undertaken, it will move across a Rubicon which in the fullness of time it will regret having crossed. However, I have no wish to be seen to be obdurate. If the later motions are confirmed by the House and a review is established by the review body of allowances for Members, it is exactly the sort of problem that it can assess and upon which it can make recommendations.

Mr. George Cunningham: A few minutes ago, and quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the House is always free to substitute its figure for one that is tabled by the Government in the opinion-expressing motion, and that that has always been the tradition of the House in dealing with this subject. That makes sense only if the Leader of the House is prepared also to say that when the House does pass—I do not think that it will do so tonight because I think that it will pass the opinion-expressing motion as it stands on the Paper—an amendment which raises the figure in the opinion-expressing motion, the


Government will accept that as a decision of the House, and will then that night or on another night bring forward an amended, perfected motion to reflect the amended opinion-expressing motion which the House will then carry. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether that is his attitude to how these matters should be handled?

Mr. Biffen: No, I do not think that I can. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The relationship between the House and the Government has not been at its happiest and most harmonious on these matters in recent years. I am proposing a modest step forward. I hope that it will take place in circumstances that will lead gradually to a better relationship that will not lead to the clashes that we have had in the recent past. There is nothing that I can say or pledge that will meet the hon. Gentleman's point in the way that he puts it. I think that the House will prefer me to say that in all candour. At the end of the day, these are matters in which the Government have a material political interest and they cannot abdicate the role which has often been performed by all Governments.
I return to the text of my speech as opposed to dealing with the amendments on the Order Paper. As is usual, no motions have been tabled on Members' other allowances—namely, the additional cost allowance, the London allowance and the car mileage allowance. These allowances will be adjusted in the normal way following changes in the equivalent Civil Service allowances. However, there is one small change that I now propose concerning travel arrangements for Members' families. As things stand, Members' spouses are entitled to up to 15 free return journeys to Westminster on parliamenary business. My predecessor received representations from several hon. Members to the effect that, for Members with young families, the spouse could not generally travel to Westminster without bringing the children, and that the free travel warrant system for spouses should therefore be extended to children, within the existing limits.
The Government accept that this is a reasonable proposition and the motion before the House provides for Members' children under 18 years to travel free to Westminster under the same conditions as currently apply to spouses. The total number of free return journeys available to Members' families will remain at 15 a year.
The motion on Ministers' pay invites the House to approve the draft order which increases the pay of Ministers and other office holders by 4 per cent. The rates shown in the order for the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor are the rates that may be paid to the holders of these offices and will apply for pension purposes. However, as in previous years, my right hon. Friend and my right hon and noble Friend will draw only the same salary as their Cabinet colleagues.

Mr. John Silkin: Is the Government's generosity towards the children of Members such that the number of free warrants will not be increased? Indeed, the Government will gain because in the majority of cases the children will have travelled for half price on the railway. The Government will be the gainer of half an adult's ticket.

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair debating point. However, the request for this reform, if I may dignify it by that description, came from Labour Back Benchers. I do not think that they will be as dismissive of

its symbolism as the right hon. Gentleman is. However, it is true that the inuitlement is not increased as a result of this decision. The possibility of its utilisation may be further enhanced.

Mr. Silkin: Surely the Government will gain by this piece of so-called generosity because two children will travel for the same price to the Government as one adult. Therefore, in giving a ticket to a child they are gaining half an adult's ticket.

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to know that in a previous Treasury incarnation I should be as pleased about the reform as I think I am pleased about it in my role as Leader of the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Surely the Government would have been more generous if they had considered carefully the basis of allowances for spouses and children. One of the penalties of being a Member of this place is being estranged from one's family. We should have free access to our children, and that is what most of us want. We are grateful for any flexibility in the system, but I have four children and I like to see them as much as possible. I do not think that I should be rationed on how often I can see them.

Mr. Biffen: The House should reflect seriously before giving to itself privileges for children's travel which will be sought equally by those in many other occupations which involve the estrangement of families.

Mr. Sheerman: How many?

Mr. Biffen: The numbers argument is a most dangerous one to use in these circumstances. The way in which we treat ourselves is monitored most closely in the outside world. The fact that we are a mere 600-odd is not a material factor in the argument. I am distressed that what was an attempt to have a more generous interpretation of the spouse allowance has resulted in an attack on the Treasury Bench for apparent niggardliness.
The last motion standing in my name on the Order Paper concerns the Government's proposals for dealing with Members' pay in the longer term. Before describing them, I should like to thank the Select Committee on Members' Salaries, whose report forms the starting point of what I shall have to say, for all its efforts. Members' pay is a notoriously difficult subject for the House and, even though I am not able to agree with all its conclusions in every respect, I consider that the Select Committee has presented the House with a most constructive report.
The Select Committee recommended, first, that there should be a review of Members' pay by the Top Salaries Review Body once during the fourth year of each Parliament. If this were precluded by shortened Parliaments a new review should be undertaken not more than four years after the salaries derived from the previous review became payable. The Select Committee's second recommendation was that there should be annual automatic interim adjustments of salaries by reference to increases in the nearest percentile of the new earnings survey.
The Government accept the first of these recommendations. There is, great value in having a completely independent review of Members' salaries. If the question were left entirely to the House, I suspect that we should have great difficulty in arriving at an acceptable figure. Moreover, there would certainly be some public suspicion


that we were treating ourselves too generously, even if precisely the reverse was the case. I believe that having the independent review towards the end of each Parliament is sensible. If, however, a shortened Parliament knocks us off course, there is nothing to stop us having two reviews separated by less than four years to get us back on it again.
The coming year is the fourth of this Parliament. Subject to the views of the House, therefore, we propose to ask the TSRB to conduct a review in time for next year's debate on Members' pay. We should also ask it to review Ministers' pay, the secretarial allowance, and such other aspects of Members' pay, in the broad sense specified by the Select Committee, as may need to be looked at.
How Members' pay is adjusted between reviews also poses a problem. The Government reluctantly accept that there should be some form of adjustment by reference to changes in outside salaries, that is, some form of linkage. We have no enthusiasm for the idea, but, in view of resolutions of the House on the subject in recent years and of what the Select Committee says, we accept it. However, we cannot agree that the link should be automatic or that it should be with the new earnings survey. Although there are examples of pay increases operated by an automatic formula, it is not a practice I believe should be further entrenched and certainly not in an area as sensitive as Members' salaries.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I am a little puzzled by the Government's reluctance to link pay with an outside body. A few moments ago the Leader of the House said that he was not able to tell us what car allowances and London allowances would be in the year ahead because he had to wait until those figures had been sorted out for the Civil Service. We seem to be linked to the Civil Service for our car and living in London allowances, but apparently it is obnoxious to the right hon. Gentleman to have similar linkage on salary. Some of us are a little puzzled about his attitude on the question.

Mr. Biffen: The Select Committee was not proposing a linkage in respect of salaries. We are discussing the interim increases between the four-yearly review by the Top Salaries Review Body and what form of linkage would be appropriate for that practice. I should strongly discourage the concept that the House should expect for itself some kind of automatic pay increase that proceeded by some stealthy manner or some wholly irreversible manner—for that is what it would seem to do. If the House is not prepared to accept the responsibility of discussing these things once a year, then there will be a great deal of well-justified anxiety and suspicion about how we concluded these matters.
As for the form of the link, whatever may be the relationship in the long run between average earnings and those in the public service, it is right in principle that MPs' pay should keep in step with that of public servants. Any other system would be certain to give rise to bad feeling. Moreover, the new earnings survey is published in November and covers earnings in the year ending with the previous April. The changes that it records are therefore, on average, over a year old when it is published. That could give rise to great difficulty in a period when the rate of increase in pay settlements was falling.
As an alternative, we propose that between reviews the Government should move annual motions to effect

changes in Members' salaries and in so doing should be guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups in the public service for the period concerned. There are several important points in that formulation. The first is that, as now, Members' pay would be adjusted following an annual debate. There would not be an automatic adjustment. The second is that, although the Government would be guided by the average increase for particular public service groups, and would normally expect to propose to the House an adjustment in Members' pay that corresponded to the average, there could be circumstances where that course could not be followed for one reason or another. In short, the Government reserve the right to respond flexibly to exceptional circumstances.
The motion refers to
appropriate groups in the public service".
The groups that I have in mind are the non-industrial Civil Service, primary and secondary teachers, National Health Service doctors, dentists and administrators. It is not necessary to make a final decision about the groups to be included at this stage. However, the general principles are clear. The groups should represent a widely based segment of the public services but particular groups to whom the Government have given special commitments, such as the Armed Forces and the police, should be excluded. As I envisage that the average pay increase for all groups would be weighted by numbers in the group, there would be little point in including numerically small groups. The groups that I have mentioned all have their settlement date on 1 April. That is useful as it means that, on the one hand, the changes in pay would be recent, unlike the new earnings survey link, and, on the other, that the settlements should have been concluded in time for a debate on Members' pay before the Summer Recess.
The Government do not propose to apply linkage to Ministers' pay, or to the secretarial allowance. Between Top Salaries Review Body reviews those items would be revised on an ad hoc basis.
Much passion is aroused by the question of linkage, but in the scheme that I have outlined and that recommended by the Select Committee it is of only secondary importance. The periodic reviews by the TSRB will be the chief means of keeping Members' pay on a satisfactory basis. Providing that those are undertaken regularly, it does not matter much if the interim arrangements are approximate rather than precise.
Amendments have been tabled which concern these resolutions. The first, which deals with the important matters of pension and severance pay, was tabled by the right hon. Member for Deptford. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) tabled an amendment on pensions, but it was not selected. I understand the concern about severance pay, although it has been examined in the past. However, it would be appropriate, if the House votes for the Government motion this evening, that the Top Salaries Review Body should undertake this autumn a consideration of the matters that are dealt with in those amendments.
There are other amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) that invite the House to accept the full Select Committee report without addition, adjustment or amendment. The House is confronted with a straight choice this evening in the Lobbies. The first is, about the comparita that will be used for calculating the interim


increases. I have explained our reservations about the new earnings survey as a means of securing the comparisons because we believe that the range of public sector settlements is more appropriate.
The second is whether the increase that will be derived from the comparita should be automatic, as are the mileage allowance or the additional cost changes, or whether it should be the subject of debate, endorsement and confirmation by the House each year. It would be a most significant and dubious departure if we proceeded to a position whereby the annual increase was made automatically without any possibility of judgment in the House. That is why I believe that the arrangements for accepting much of the spirit of the Select Committee's report, buttressed by the Government's proposals, will enhance what is before the House. I hope that we can come to a broad and settled view. The Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations has been sympathetic and is none the worse because it has not been an unconditional endorsement.
If the House supports the proposals that I have outlined, we shall have taken a modest step in the direction of freeing Members' pay from the capricious circumstances that have attended it in recent years. No doubt we shall have our quota of problems in the future, but I hope that we can avoid the worst pitfalls. I am sure that the House will not expect a perfect arrangement, but I am convinced that the Government's proposals offer a modest and tangible way forward.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out "£14,510" and insert "£14,787".
I understand that it will be convenient also to take the following amendments:

(b), to leave out "£8,460" and insert "£8,618".

(a) to motion No. 4, to leave out "£8,752" and insert "£9,022".
(b) to motion No. 4, to leave out "£8,820" and insert "£9,158".
(c) to motion No. 4, at end add

"(c) additionally, that in those cases where individual Members can authenticate the expenditure they be reimbursed for the payment of an annual London weighting allowance of £1,087 to their secretaries".
(a) to motion No. 7, to leave out from "1982" to end of motion and add
"and agrees with the recommendations of that Report".
(b) to motion No. 7, to leave out from "payable" to end and add

'(c) agrees with the view expressed in that Report that, between such reviews Members salaries should be adjusted annually by reference to increases in outside salaries as indicated in the nearest percentile in the Department of Employment's New Earnings Survey.
(d) does not accept the view in that Report that the question of Members' pensions and severence payments should be subsumed under the general heading of "Pay" to await consideration in the context of the next general review of Members' pay, but is of the opinion that, in the light of anomalies inherent in the present severance arrangements and the in creased insecurity attached to the role of a Member, the Top Salaries Review Body be requested to undertake an urgent review of pension and severance arrangements and make recommendations accordingly.' .

I preface my contribution to the debate by paying tribute to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee, whose report provides a valuable and helpful backcloth to the debate. If I have decided reservations about some features of their recommendations, that is in no way a reflection on the diligent and responsible way in which they have carried out their task. Having read their report, I also wish to express my appreciation of the oral evidence of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) for the continuing work that he has undertaken on behalf of Labour Members.
I have listened attentively to the Leader of the House. Parliamentary salaries should not be so generous as to be an attraction in themselves nor so low as to discourage able aspirants from seeking membership of the House. Members have a right to a fair and reasonable scale of remuneration and a salary sufficient to enable them to do what their constituents increasingly expect of them—to devote a major part of their time, if not their whole time, to their parliamentary duties. It is on the basis of that simple proposition that I take issue with the figures in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that parliamentary salaries cannot be fully protected, or indeed isolated, from the consequences of economic inflation. Nor is anyone in the House impervious to the political sensitivities, to which the Leader of the House referred, surrounding Members' pay and allowances. It is time we started distinguishing myth from reality in this issue.
It is a myth that the sustained restraint and self-discipline which Members have exercised over many years in regard to parliamentary pay has ever persuaded anyone to follow our example. The reality is that, during the last 20 years, there is no recorded case of any group—administrative, professional or manual—ever following the lead in pay restraint demonstrated by Members of the House.
If we take the operative date of the proposed annual interim increases, 13 June, in the context of the annual wage cycle, we are at the end of the queue. I suspect that we have been deliberately pushed to the end of the pay round so that parliamentary pay will not be taken as a lead—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Even if one were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that people do not follow us when we are restrained, would he not agree that if we were unrestrained at a time when they are being restrained, it would have the opposite effect and we would be setting an extremely bad example?

Mr. Morris: I can understand the feelings which have generated that thought in the hon. Lady's mind, but I cannot recall an occasion when increases given to Members and Ministers could ever be designated as unrestrained. I invite the hon. Lady or, indeed, any hon. Member, to name an occasion when any increase that we have ever accepted for ourselves could be designated in any way as unrestrained.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is probably


still thinking in terms of Europe, where "restraint" is the last word which is ever used and "unrestrained" is the word one could apply.

Mr. Morris: Indeed, my hon. Friend has made a valid point.
The issue posed in the Government's motion on pay and allowances is not one of Ministers earnestly seeking partially to protect parliamentary salaries and allowances from the continuing erosion to which they have been subject as a result of Government policy over the last 12 months. The issue is essentially political. We have listened to Ministers day in, day out, and they never weary of preaching the virtues of free collective bargaining. But what they are embarked upon this evening is an exercise to impose on Members and their private secretaries the Prime Minister's wretched 4 per cent. pay policy.
I felt that it might be helpful to our deliberations to establish just how many groups in the public sector have actually settled at 4 per cent. or less. I, as every hon. Member does, went into the Library and invited the able assistance of the House of Commons Library statistical section to find out just how many such groups had settled at 4 per cent. or less. I received the following reply:
You asked me to let you know which groups, particularly administrative and clerical groups, in the public sector have settled in the current round for 4 per cent. or less. I have not found any group which has settled for as little as 4 per cent. and Incomes Data Services (IDS) have also checked their files and found no such group.
Having failed to persuade any other comparable group to settle for 4 per cent. or less, the Prime Minister and the Government have singled out hon. Members and their private secretaries on whom to impose what I can only describe as the Prime Minister's squalid pay policy obsessions.
During the past year, settlements in the public sector, even if we exclude the recent massive awards to senior civil servants, senior Service officers and the judiciary, have varied between 6 per cent. and 13 per cent. The general body of civil servants, whom the Prime Minister appears to take a malevolent delight in clobbering, received 6 per cent. Members and their secretaries are offered 4 per cent., as will be seen from the motion on the Order Paper.
Do Ministers believe that hon. Members and their families pay less for their food and the other essential prerequisites of life than civil servants? Does the Leader of the House accept that hon. Members and their private secretaries are in a better position to withstand the increases in mortgages, tube, bus and rail fares than secretaries in the Civil Service? That is the logic of the motions tabled by the Leader of the House.
Last year, civil servants received an interim settlement of 7 per cent. plus £30. Hon. Members received an interim settlement of 5·73 per cent. This year civil servants were awarded 6 per cent. The Government motions envisage hon. Members and their secretaries receiving 4 per cent. How can that be justified?

Mr. Geraint Howells: It would be wiser if we could clarify the position. The secretaries will not automatically receive a 4 per cent. increase. An extra 4 per cent. will be given to hon. Members as an allowance for secretarial and research work.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing that point.
It is neither equitable nor fair to accept the implications of the figure of 4 per cent. in the motions tabled by the Leader of the House. Not only have we fallen behind the movements in the retail price index and the average earnings index, but we are falling behind civil servants consistently year after year. The amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and I have tabled seek to improve the figures that the Leader of the House has tabled to a modest 6 per cent. That is all we seek. We seek 6 per cent. for hon. Members and the secretarial allowance—a rate that has been conceded already by the Government to civil servants.
In 1975 and 1980 the House went on record as being in favour of linking parliamentary pay with a Civil Service grade for salary purposes. At that time the Civil Service assistant secretary grade was selected as the nearest to the level of salary in operation for hon. Members. That Civil Service grade was selected for comparability purposes.
Only those Members with an over-vivid imagination would aspire to the heights enjoyed by civil servants on assistant secretary grade. Their maximum pay is £19,612. With the inner London weighting allowance the salary is £23,288. That was the comparability that the House felt was fitting in 1979 and 1980.
If we cannot aspire to compare ourselves with assistant secretaries, we must look at which Civil Service grade we could now equate ourselves with. A senior principal currently receives a maximum salary of £16,810. With the inner London weighting allowance, a senior principal receives £21,014. We cannot equate ourselves with senior principals. Perhaps we can equate ourselves with the principal grade. His current salary is £12,999. With the inner London weighting allowance, it is £17,035. If we cannot equate ourselves with him, who next? We go then to the senior executive officer who is on a salary of £10,000. With the inner London weighting allowance, he enjoys a salary of £13,056. I could continue.
Under the Government, and the way that they think about the salaries of hon. Members, we shall be quickly down to the salary of the higher clerical officer. That is the reality with which hon. Members are confronted in the determination of salaries and secretarial allowances. I have read the Select Committee's report and listened to the Leader of the House dismiss the idea of a linkage with Civil Service grades. I have read the same arguments in the tendentious document published by a previous distinguished Leader of the House to hon. Members in October 1980 dealing with parliamentary pay and pensions. In that document he was dismissive of a linkage with Civil Service grades. It is done in France, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. What happens in the United States of America? Congress approved a motion that no civil servant would receive more in remuneration than that enjoyed by the Congressman. That is the reality of linkage. How can one dismiss the linking argument?
The amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley and myself dealing with Members' pay seek to increase Members' salaries by a modest 6 per cent. That is in line with that already conceded by the Government to civil servants. If we accept the Government's proposals for hon. Members' office, secretarial and research allowances, we shall be doing a


serious injustice to loyal and dedicated staff who, I believe, bring a real commitment to their jobs. I am referring to hon. Members' private secretaries.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) made the point that secretarial allowances will increase by 4 per cent., but that that might not mean a 4 per cent. increase for the private secretaries. Let me tell the House a fact of life regarding secretaries. Hon. Members are not big spenders when it comes to recruiting private secretaries. In general, they do not give large salaries to their private secretaries. To single out the secretarial allowance, when I have demonstrated that no comparable group has accepted a settlement of 4 per cent. or less, is really a bit much.
I have great admiration for the way that the Leader of the House carries out his responsibilities, both in his present role and in his previous ministerial roles. I hope that he will look again at secretarial allowances to see what he can do. Our secretaries get little or no redundancy pay. Their salaries do not attract London weighting. Most of them work with Members because of a shared political commitment, so it is a bit much that the House and Members have singled them out as the banner carriers for the Prime Minister's squalid 4 per cent. pay policy.
I should like to mention future arrangements for Members' salaries. I have tabled two amendments to the motions on these matters. Having read motion No. 7—
Future arrangements for Members' salaries"—
and listened to the Leader of the House, I am still at a loss to know what it means. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was restructuring and making provision for a modest improvement to ensure an organised interim uplifting. However, we should read paragraph (d) carefully, because I am convinced that it was drafted by a civil servant. I say that as a former Minister of State, Civil Service Department. Paragraph (d) states that this House
is of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government should instead, in the period between one such review and the next, move annual motions to effect changes in Members' salaries and in so doing should be guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups.
The Leader of the House was not very forthcoming about the groups with which we are to be compared, but, even if he had been, they were to be used only as a guide. In my opinion, that is not good enough.
Then there is the Select Committee's suggestion of increases on an annual basis by reference to increases in outside salaries, given to the nearest percentages in the Department of Employment's "New Earnings Survey". That is a far more efficient way to do it, and I hope that the Government will look again at that suggestion.
The amendment that we tabled shows that the Opposition do not accept the view in the Select Committee's report
that the question of Members' pensions and severance payments should be subsumed under the general heading of Pay to await consideration in the context of the next general review of Members' pay, but is of the opinion that, in the light of the anomalies inherent in the present severance arrangements and the increased insecurity attached to the role of a Member, the Top Salaries Review Body be requested to undertake an urgent review of pension and severance arrangements.
Let us make no mistake: pension and severance arrangements are of crucial importance for every Member of the House. There are anomalies in severance arrangements. A teacher contributes to his pension entitlement about the same percentage of salary as does a Member of the House, but as a Member one does not get

a pension before the age of 65. A teacher is entitled to take his pension at the age of 60. Those are the anomalies that I believe should be seriously examined.
As regards pension arrangements, one-sixtieth is nonsense. I do not know any parliamentarian who, having won a seat in the House to represent a constituency, can look to 30 years as a Member. We need a true rate which takes account of the hazards of parliamentary life.
I recently read Lord Plowden's report on the Top Salaries Review Body's examination and recommendations on senior civil servants, senior Service officers and the judiciary. I was impressed that, in his preface, Lord Plowden referred to the objectives which his committee sought to establish. The objectives were to set limits that would ensure that the grades covered by the report are not affected by what he termed deep-seated feelings of unfairness. All I can say to that is bully for them if they have someone examining their salaries who does not want to leave them with a deep-seated feeling of unfairness.
There is a widespread sense of unfairness among hon. Members on both sides of the House, and certainly among private secretaries employed by hon. Members, about the Government's proposals in these motions. That feeling also exists among those who watch events in this Chamber. I believe that hon. Members are entitled to expect better than the shabby treatment they have received so far.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall confine my remarks to motion No. 7 and amendment (a) in my name, because I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Select Committee that produced the report. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) for their kind remarks about members of the Committee. I pay tribute to those hon. Members on the Committee for their work and for their support in the production of the report. I am also grateful for the fact that my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, said that he supports parts of the report, but I am disappointed that the major part of it has been abandoned by my right hon. Friend.
The problems faced by the House over the years in its attempts to determine a fair and reasonable salary for hon. Members are well known and I shall not rehearse them. The Select Committee's report sets out the problems fairly and clearly. Whatever methods have been tried, difficulties have been encountered. In the view of successive Governments, the time for effecting an adequate increase is never convenient. At the same time, the House is always sensitive to adverse public opinion and anxious to set an example.
There is no doubt that, over the years, hon. Members' pay has frequently lagged behind that which an objective assessor would regard as fair. Many examples can be given where variations in independent proposals, or delay in their implementation, have produced injustice, while the effect of such restraint as an example to the public has, to put it at its highest, been negligible.
One of the sad effects of all this is that in every recent year the House has been forced into somewhat unseemly debate and many divisions of opinion have emerged on how or what we should pay ourselves. The task of the Select Committee was to try to find an alternative to this recurrent, bruising wrangle. We tried to agree on an equitable method of determining Members' remuneration


without being at the mercy of short-term considerations. At the same time, we had to bear in mind that the House cannot abandon its ultimate responsibility for determining its pay. This, as can be seen from our report, was no easy task. Every procedure suggested or considered has drawbacks. The problem is almost intractable and there is no comfortable answer. No method can be found that is likely to command the united support of both the public and the House. It is really a question of finding a solution with the least defects.
I firmly and respectfully submit that the recommendations in our report are the least objectionable and the best form of compromise that could be devised and, as far as the House as a whole is concerned, infinitely preferable to the proposals in my hon. Friend's motion.
What my right hon. Friend is proposing in paragraphs (c) and (d) is precisely what the Select Committee was seeking to avoid—a repetition of the annual, discredited public wrangle over Members' pay, an example of which may, I know not, probably be seen tonight.
From the debate so far, it appears to be generally agreed that there should be an independent, in-depth review at the end of each Parliament. The House will then decide on the recommendations made by the review body. Updating between reviews will clearly be needed, and that appears to be generally agreed. But if we are to avoid the annual wrangle, it is clear that the updating must be a linkage that is automatic.
The Select Committee recommends an automatic updating between reviews by reference to the average increases enjoyed by those in both the public and private sectors, receiving similar salaries. My right hon. Friend's motion—and this was reflected in his speech—wholly rejects any automatic linkage and suggests that the Government of the day should table
annual motions to effect changes in Members' salaries",
certainly not linked to but
guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups in the Public Service".
My right hon. Friend described that as a modest step forward. In my submission, he is suggesting precisely what is happening today in the motions that have been put forward, which have led to the challenging speech of the right hon. Member for Openshaw and will probably lead to Divisions later tonight.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the wording in paragraph (d). It is so vague that, under whichever Government are in power, the interim years would clearly be at the mercy of political expendiency and we would be back to our embarrassing debates and Divisions.
Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government to think again, in the interests of the dignity of the House. Our recommendation for an interim linkage to the nearest percentile in the Department of Employment's new earnings survey is modest. In no way can it affect the Government's present overall economic strategy. Were the Select Committee's recommendations accepted by the House, and were the review to take place next year and a decision taken by the House on the findings of the review body, the salary increase would operate in the next Parliament and the first automatic updating would become effective at least one year afterwards.
It should also be remembered that this is not index linking with the cost of living, which I agree would be objectionable. The House has the responsibility and the burden of fixing its remuneration. What possible fair criticism could there be if the House were to state that, between reviews, Members' salaries were to be increased by no more and no less than the average increase of similar salaries throughout the country? I cannot believe that that would have an adverse public effect.
I remind my right hon. Friend, as he has already been reminded by the right hon. Member for Openshaw, that the House has twice recently voted for automatic linkage, but not the interim linkage, such as we suggest, whereby the issue returns periodially to the House.
The House has voted for permanent automatic linkage to a grade in the public service. Naturally, the Select Committee had to take that into account in our deliberations. We considered and appreciated the force of some of the objections and were in favour of complete linkage only if no better solution could be found. In the event, we mainly agreed that we had found that better solution. There were differences of opinion in the Select Committee, ranging from those who believed in complete linkage to those who had grave doubts about any form of linkage. Our report represents a consensus—that which the Committee as a whole agreed would substantially achieve its purpose in a way that most shades of opinion could accept.
If my right hon. Friend and the Government persist in slamming the door shut on the modest interim linkage that has been recommended, we are effectively back to square one, and all the embarrassments and controversies of past years will continue. Members' pay and allowances are essentially a matter for decision by the House as whole on a free vote—I hope a truly free vote. Ministers have the responsibility of recommending expenditure, but it is the House that always has the final responsibility of approval. It is the opinion of the House in this unique domestic issue of pay that should guide whichever Government are in office. The Select Committee's recommendations offer an acceptable and just solution. I hope that the House will agree.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I shall begin with a few words on behalf of those who, by the nature of the debate, are unable to speak for themselves—the secretaries, research assistants and other staff whose remuneration we are debating. The miserable 4 per cent. rise is an insulting proposition and wholly inadequate. The Leader of the House referred to comparable groups of workers who might be taken as guidelines for rises in Members' salaries and, presumably, rises in the salaries of secretaries.
An offer of 6·4 per cent. has already been made to the nurses and been rejected by them as inadequate. It is reported today that ACAS, a completely independent tribunal, has awarded a 6 per cent. rise to the teachers. In the light of those examples, I cannot see how the House can honestly say to the men and women who serve it loyally and capably as secretaries, research assistants and others, that they are worth only a 4 per cent. rise, bearing in mind the way in which inflation and general costs have risen in the past 12 months and seem likely to continue to do so. It is an insulting proposition and I trust that the House will reject it and vote for our amendment.
There are other considerations, apart from rates of pay, relating to conditions for secretaries. Those who are members of my union, APEX, made representations to the Leader of the House in March through their proper union machinery. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman refused to meet representatives from the union. It was out of character, as he is a civil and courteous person and I should normally have expected him to meet them. Nevertheless, he did not.

Mr. Biffen: I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I saw members of APEX earlier this week.

Mr. Hooley: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, of course. In the correspondence forwarded to me, however, he said explicitly that he saw no point in such a meeting. If he later changed his mind, I am glad that he did so and that he saw them. Nevertheless, that was his initial reply in April. He said that he was not prepared to see them as he saw no point in doing so.

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I was then Leader of the House.

Mr. Hooley: In that case, I shall have to quote the letter. It is signed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Biffen: In that case, I at once withdraw what I said—I must, indeed, have been Leader of the House.

Mr. Hooley: Perhaps we should leave it at that. At any rate, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen the representatives. I am only sorry that he declined initially to do so.
The points made by members of my union in their submission covered a number of matters relating to their conditions of service. They accepted that there had been some improvements recently—for example, in provisions

for pensions and in financial provision, allowing a Member to take on a substitute if the regular secretary is ill.
They suggested particularly that secretaries should all be paid direct from the Fees Office. That can already be done, if the Member so chooses, and I do not think that it is a matter of great controversy.
They suggested that the amount given be divided between secretaries and research assistants. Personally, I agree with the reply of the Leader of the House, that at is much better for this to be determined by the Member.
They also suggested that there might be some form of incremental scheme for payments to secretaries. They further suggested the possibility of an allowance if secretaries were required to work late in the evening or at weekends, and an allowance for travel if they were required to go to the Member's constituency to carry out their work.

Mr. George Cunningham: We can pay that.

Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend says that we can pay that. That is, of course, true if the total sum allows it. If, however, the sum is already committed in regular payments to secretaries, nothing is left over to make extra payments for unsocial hours. I merely put on record the requests and suggestions made by members of my union employed as secretaries in the House.
A matter of greater substance is the request for London weighting. This is important. It seems anomalous that we accept London weighting for ourselves, in what is known as the London supplement for hon. Members who Live within so many miles of Charing Cross, but refuse it to our secretaries. Again, it is no use saying that a Member can give London weighting, because all Members have equal secretarial allowances. Clearly, those who live in London cannot give something extra compared with those living outside if the money does not allow for it.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend is confusing the issue. It is a matter not of whether one lives in London but of whether one's secretary works in London. I pay the Civil Service rate, including London weighting, because my secretary works here. The same must be true for many hon. Members. It has nothing to do with whether I live in London.

Mr. Hooley: Where an hon. Member lives obviously relates to where his secretary works. Almost by definition that will be in London. In that case, there should be some kind of weighting or allowance to reflect the extra cost of living, working and travelling in the Metropolis. That is why I support (c) amendment to motion No. 4. It would make provision for that.
I return to the linkage of Members' salaries. This has been effectively clealt with by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am appalled that the Government have again rejected what was a modest compromise by the Select Committee. The Select Committee did not come out in favour of linkage, as I understand it. I simply came out in favour of a quadriennial review by the Top Salaries Review Body, or some such body, but with an interim linkage system, which would have dealt with some of the problems that we are dealing with now. The Government have rejected even that modest compromise. They have replaced it with the


gobbledegook in paragraph (d) to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) has already referred.
The Chairman of the Select Committee is right when he says that this takes us back to square one. Whatever the meaning of the words in paragraph (d), the Government will do as they like. They can be "guided"—heaven knows what that means—by some other consideration, but in effect we are back to the present situation. The old problem that some hon. Members thought could be solved by a linkage scheme remains unresolved. We are back to the annual wrangle, distaste and feeling of injustice, which has gone on year after year.
Everyone knows that successive Governments have refused to implement the findings of the independent review board. Until there is some automatic linkage mechanism, there will be an annual wrangle. I should be prepared to accept the compromise suggested by the Select Committee, at least for the time being, although I hope that eventually the proper linkage principle, which the House has emphatically declared in favour of on a number of occasions, will be fully and properly implemented.
The Select Committee commented on pensions and severance payments in paragraph 26 of its report. It said:
We noted in paragraph 12 above that the House in July 1980 expressed the opinion that pension rights should be bettered, and in our view, this expression of opinion reflected a long-felt concern that pension and reverence provisions are not yet adequate to avert real hardship for some. These are matters which undoubtedly should and would be further examined".
There is no indication in the Government's proposals that they will do anything serious about this situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw said, the age at which one can draw a pension should be reduced to 60, as is the case already in the Civil Service and in other professions. I also believe that the accrual rate should be increased from the one-sixtieth arrangement, although I am not sure whether one could jump to the one-fortieth arrangement all at once. On the figures presented by a previous Leader of the House, the average service in the House is 17 years. Although some hon. Members manage to remain Members of Parliament for 20 or 30 years, or more, that is the average length of service.
There might well be some provision for the payment of a lump sum on retirement, as is done in the Civil Service. Further examination needs to be made of the arrangements for severance payments, although I accept that there are difficulties. At present, if a Member of Parliament loses his seat, or if his seat disappears as a result of redistribution, severance payment is payable. There may well be other instances—such as family circumstances, and so on—that would make it reasonable and logical for some form of severance payment to be made if someone ceased to be a Member of Parliament. That should be considered.
The Government's proposals are mean, timid and unsatisfactory. The 4 per cent. rise offered to secretaries and hon. Members is thoroughly mean. As has been said, the statistical section of the Library could discover no other group that has settled for 4 per cent. or less. It is disgraceful that the Government should treat in this squalid way not only hon. Members—and it is our own fault if we do not vote against the proposals—but those loyal and devoted servants upon whom we depend for much of our work.
Given the Government's argument about comparability with the public sector, they know perfectly well that most groups in the public sector have settled, or intend to settle, for about 6 per cent. and have no intention of accepting the Government's miserable 4 per cent. increase, which is deliberately designed to reduce their standard of living.

Mr. Edward du Cann: The greater part of the speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was concerned with secretarial allowances, and I shall deal with that matter in a moment.
I characterise tonight's debate as the debate that should not need to take place and as the unnecessary debate. The fact that there are no fewer than 16 motions and amendments on the Order Paper is ample evidence of the unsatisfactory situation in which we find ourselves. The muddle of our arrangements and our obvious dissatisfaction with them has been evidenced this evening.
As a matter of interest, we last discussed the remuneration and allowances of hon. Members and Ministers almost exactly one year ago—on 5 June 1981. That was the sixth debate on the subject in this Parliament. There was one debate on it in 1979, two in 1980 and no fewer than three in 1981. Therefore, this is the seventh debate of this Parliament. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) remarked in his typically able and clear speech, such occasions are not always the most dignified parliamentary moments. How right he was when he said that we had a duty to ourselves—and, I believe, to the nation—to ensure that we do everything possible to avoid wrangles on such subjects.
It should not be necessary to debate such matters seven times during one Parliament. One should be enough. I have a consistent view. Not every hon. Member will agree with it. I gave it in evidence to the Select Committee, presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South. That view is that such matters should be settled at the end of a Parliament, to be valid in the next Parliament, and should not be fundamentally reviewed during the Parliament's lifetime.
I do not accept the view that there should always be annual reviews. There are many who engage in employment for fixed periods for fixed remuneration. I do not see why that system should not apply to ourselves. Nor do I have much sympathy with the idea that it is necessary—perhaps some would argue essential—for these issues always to be referred to an outside body. In the end, we must make the decisions. It is a little cowardly always to ask others to settle our problems for us.
I do not agree with the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South—that we should consider these matters every four years as a matter of routine. Many problems would arise if we were to accept that advice. The appropriate time to deal with these matters is at the end of a Parliament so that those coming into the new Parliament, whether as Members of Parliament or their servants, know exactly where they stand for the lifetime of that Parliament.

Mr. John Silkin: Why is it "a little cowardly" for us to hand over the decision on our salaries to another body, but not cowardly for judges?

Mr. du Cann: Judges do not have the responsibility of making the decision. The right hon. Gentleman knows that others make the decision for them. We have to make the decision. We ran to an outside body only because we were frightened to make the decision that we thought should be made by ourselves. That is how the process began.
Considerable reference has been made to linkage. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South remarked, there are two sorts of linkage. There is permanent linkage with a particular profession—for example, an assistant secretary in the Civil Service or a lieutenant-colonel in the Army—and there is interim linkage. It is worth while reminding ourselves why linkage has been discussed. The proposal to link ourselves with a profession was made because we were certain that no Government would ever pay Members of Parliament properly. It was an attempt to force Governments to do so. We have now arrived at the idea of interim linkage, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred in making some interesting and important proposals. That is the main feature of the Select Committee's report.
My argument is that if salaries or allowances require minor revision during the lifetime of a Parliament, that should occur automatically by reference to an agreed formula. It is said that the effects of inflation should lead to a minor revision of salaries or allowances, but equally it is argued that parliamentarians should not be entitled to insulate themselves against inflation, it being to some extent the consequence of careless architects.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the survey recommended by the Select Committee is not right. It is out of date, and there are certain implications in adopting that procedure. However, I could not understand the force of his argument for linking us to a basket of professions—I have not quite understood his proposition and we shall want to read his words with considerable care—and treating us in one way while he wants to treat secretaries in another and Ministers in yet a third way. I cannot see the reason for that. I cannot see why the three categories should not be treated alike.
If we are to have a form of linkage during the lifetime of a Parliament, let us accept one norm for everybody and adhere to it. In that way everybody will know where they are.
Under my right hon. Friend's proposals, which no doubt we shall have the opportunity to discuss with him, it seems to me that we shall have perpetual argument—the wrangles to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred—because different things will be done to different people at different times. That does not seem to be wise. Much embarrassment and difficulty, some parliamentary time and hardship would have been avoided if this sensible practice had been the norm in the past.
We have a whole series of individual motions and amendments to consider. Broadly speaking, as my right hon. Friend remarked, they divide into two categories—the present and the future.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) made an important speech. He devoted much of his speech to the present day and the Government's proposals that Members' and Ministers' salaries and the secretarial allowance should be increased by 4 per cent. That is the purpose of motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 on the Order Paper. In parentheses, it is right to remark that,

whatever the Government or the Opposition may propose in these matters, it is for hon. Members to decide. If there is anything wrong with the present position, the fault is ours.
I remind the House that when levels of remuneration were set at the start of this Parliament, which was an uncomfortable affair, as we all remember, it was not envisaged that there would be any mid-term increase. That is an important point. That was the understanding of the House. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's proposals, which have been somewhat criticised by Labour Members, are a considerable advance on what was agreed and understood at the beginning of this Parliament. They are a considerable advance on 0 per cent.
I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Openshaw spent so much time referring to this, that or the other group that had had this, that, or the other per cent. He and the hon. Member for Heeley, said that it was impossible to find any group that had had nothing over the past year or so. That is untrue. Many companies in the United Kingdom, because of the present economic stringency, have not been able to give their staff salary increases. By comparison, hon. Members are not doing too badly.
There is another matter of which the House should be reminded. This proposal of 4 per cent. has been widely discussed. My right hon. Friend did not mention this, but he should have the credit for it. He has consulted widely and, as far as I know, what has been proposed has found a fair measure of acceptance. In the circumstances, I hope that the House will agree to what is being proposed and will support his proposals. That is why, although I am sorry not to agree with the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), for whose views I normally have the greatest respect, I cannot go along with the amendment that he and his hon. Friends have tabled.
Furthermore, the 4 per cent. that is proposed has a particular advantage that we should bear in mind. A small improvement now lessens the substantial gap that has opened in past Parliaments between the level of salaries at their opening and at their closing, measured in real terms. We all recall that on occasions that gap has been so substantial that in more than one Parliament in past years Governments have cowardly—that is an offensive word to use, but I use it deliberately—failed to bridge them. Here, the ad vice given has been heeded, and I repeat my gratitude to my right hon.. Friend for what he has done in this respect.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be criticising his earlier point. As I understand it, he would be in favour of the plan that, at the end of the life of a Parliament—which, after all, is in the gift of the Prime Minister to a great extent—if one could determine what the salary should be for the incoming Members, they would know precisely where they stood, and would not wish these annual increases.
The right hon. Gentleman is, in his last point, demonstrating that if there is no adjustment, the gap is so wide that Governments baulk at what would be the natural progression over four or three years. I am trying to fathom out which course he favours, because he seems to be contradicting himself.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that he does. My view is clear. I should prefer to set the salary for the whole. Parliament. If we are to have


adjustments—it appears to be the wish of the House that we should have adjustments—they should be fixed by reference to a specific norm, which would be the same for everyone. That course has some incidental advantage.
We should remind ourselves of the circumstances of the introduction of allowances. That owed much, if not everything, to the failure of successive Governments to pay Members adequately. There were pay increases in 1975, 1979, and 1980. As the Select Committee report said, Members' salaries have not been fully up-to-date since 1972. Successive Administrations foolishly believed that further specific allowances would be more tolerated by the public than higher remuneration for Members of Parliament. There was an attempt to fudge the issue of how much Members were costing.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tabled motion No. 5 and we appreciate the spirit in which it has been introduced. I hope that he will not mind if I tell him that I cannot get excited about the proposal for a limited amount of childrens' travel allowance—travel, I hasten to say, at the expense of the wife's opportunity to be with her husband. There is a sort of mad Irish logic about this proposal. The more children one has, and the more often one sees them, the fewer the chances there will be for the husband and wife to cohabit at the taxpayer's expense. But the fewer children one has, the greater will be the opportunity for husband and wife to come together.
My right hon. Friend said that there had been representations about this, but to my knowledge they did not come from the Parliamentary Labour Party, and they certainly did not come from the 1922 Committee. He was wise to say that we must be careful when awarding ourselves allowances which most people do not have. If one works for a company, one cannot charge one's childrens' travel as a justifiable expense. I repeat that the only reason why we have the allowance is that we do not give ourselves enough cash in the first place. I hope that we shall not pass this motion tonight. We should not waste time on such trivialities.

Mr. English: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not protest about car allowances, because the same is true there? This merely applies to rail the same principles that already apply to car travel.

Mr. du Cann: I have always expressed a consistent view on these allowances, as the hon. Gentleman will privately acknowledge. I merely make a point about the foolish complexities when allowances become more important than salary. It is also unfortunate that our system encourages various lobbies. That is not a healthy development.
The question of the adequacy of allowances for secretaries and research assistants is a legitimate subject for the most careful consideration, but I am surprised by the proposal for the London weighting allowance, in part for the reason adduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in an intervention and for other reasons with which I need not trouble the House. We have a problem with secretarial allowances because no two Members' responsibilities or activities are equal. However, we should decide two matters. First, to avoid potential embarrassment, payment should always be made by the Fees Office and not by Members. Secondly, allowances such as salaries should be set at the outset of

Parliament and should be adjusted by reference to an accepted yardstick as a matter of routine, as so many of our allowances.
The position of Members of Parliament has improved markedly since in 1978 an agreed view was formulated between the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the 1922 Committee and was then put to the elected leadership of both the major parties. Despite Governments, much has been agreed and achieved. I am in sympathy with the spirit of amendment (b) to motion No. 7. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, we must pay attention to many other matters. Much more must be agreed and achieved.
Severance pay is one matter. Members and Ministers' salaries, despite the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body, are markedly too low by any yardstick. If we consider overseas legislatures and salaries paid in commerce, that is obviously true. The right hon. Member for Openashaw put it very well when he said that salaries must not be so high as to be an attraction by themselves, nor so low as to cause hardship. That is correct. Members' salaries should be at least £25,000 a year and Ministers' pay should be considerably higher.
Of course, there should be an element of sacrifice in public life. That is healthy and appropriate, but the sacrifice can sometimes be too great. I do not wish to mention names, but every hon. Member knows of a colleague who died recently. The only reason why he remained a Member of the House when he had a serious physical disability was that the pension that he might have drawn had he retired would not have been adequate for his needs. We all know of other cases. The pension scheme is still in need of considerable improvement. The opportunity to buy extra years has been a great help, but we must work towards a fraction of fortieths rather than sixtieths.
Last, but by no means least, we must reconsider our physical facilities, which are far from satisfactory. This building, which should be almost exclusively ours, is being invaded increasingly by employees. It would be much better if we could make a start on the new building in Bridge Street which is long overdue.
As you often remind us, Mr. Speaker, from your distinguished Chair, it is an honour to serve here. The public who elect us to this place trust us to do our work confidently and adequately. We can only ever do that if we ensure that we have adequate conditions in which to perform those duties well.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is an outstanding member of the Administration and a man of immense intellect and competence, has taken over his responsibilities in what has begun to be a reforming Parliament. We have begun to reform, for example, the ways in which we keep the Executive under better and more continual surveillance. I hope that he will take from this debate the inspiration and encouragement to ensure that we reform not only the ways in which we do our work but the facilities we provide for ourselves and the remuneration we afford ourselves and our servants who help us.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I begin by picking up the last point that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made in his speech? He said that we were gradually improving


the methods by which the House of Commons has exercised surveillance over and controls the Executive. In my view, it is not by procedural changes primarily that we exercise any greater control over the Executive than we have done in the past—goodness knows, we have made very little change in that respect—but it is by Members quite simply choosing to exercise the powers that they have got, whatever the procedural background is.
That is not irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. If Members are not prepared to overrule the Treasury Bench, with which this subject has got nothing to do, on this matter, they are not likely to exercise their proper constitutional function of controlling the Executive in any other matter.
I am only sorry that the right hon. Member for Taunton was not with us on the Select Committee. Had we had the honour of his presence on that Select Committee, the Select Committee report might have been better and it might had had a greater chance of being accepted by hon. Members. He in the position that he holds and also the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party should have been on that committee.
May I pick up one detailed point that he mentioned on the subject of children's allowances? I, like him, am totally uninterested in that degree of detail. I happen to be not affected by that allowance. He gave the impression that that particular facility is one which would not be accorded to persons working for companies or in other ways of life. I do not think that is so. There are very few jobs where there are two places of work. Where that exists, then this kind of facility tends to be provided. I think only of the sphere that I know in diplomatic life. Of course, there is out of public funds provision for children to visit their parents when they are on a diplomatic mission abroad. So do not let us give the impression that even in one tiny respect we are doing for ourselves something very different from what is normal outside.
More generally on the debate, here we are again. In the light of what has happened and what has brought us to this point, namely, the Select Committee report, here we are going to be again and again and again without any prospect of the situation changing as a result of what has happened.
These are not decisions which should be taken or allowed to be taken by Ministers. Of course, Ministers will always hold a view and they should put their view as the Government, but it is up to Members to vote on the matter. I think this will be my swan song because after eight years of being active on the matter inside the House and outside, I have just about had enough, so I say this for the last time probably to the House.
What sickens me about the subject is not that Governments decline to suggest, which is all they can do, to the House that it should implement recommendations made to the House or to the Government, but that Members allow themselves to be persuaded or bullied or cajoled by successive Governments—this one is no worse than the previous one; they are a great deal better in many respects on this subject—into not doing what they actually want to do. If that goes on being the case, there is no solution to the problem. They may blame the Government at this stage in the debate for making a suggestion that they do not like, but after the votes are taken tonight, no blame will attach to the Government—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions relating to Members' Salaries (Expression of Opinion), Members' Salaries, Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance, Travel Facilities for Members' Children and Future Arrangements for Members' Salaries may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Question again, proposed.

Mr. Cunningham: After the Divisions tonight, if there are any, which is up to hon. Members, not the Government, no blame will attach to the Government. All the blame for whatever happens or whatever does not happen will attach, on this issue as on so many others, to hon. Members and not to the Government.
The present salary that the House thinks is appropriate for a Member of Parliament is absurd: there is no other word for it. It is not a salary that is regarded as natural in other Parliaments, with rare and inappropriate exceptions. It is not a salary which compares at all with what has been decided by the House on several occasions in the past.
If hon. Members will look at page 18 of our report, in an amendment that I sought to move but which was, of course defeated, they will see that I pointed out that if we take the figure that the House decided was right in 1964 and inflate it by one of two possible indices—one for the retail price index and another for average earnings—the salary at the time the report was written, just a few months ago, is 21·7 per cent. lower, taking the RPI, and 44·2 per cent. lower, taking average earnings.
The next occasion after 1964 when there was a major decision as to what the appropriate level was was in 1971. It came into effect at the beginning of 1972. The present figure is 16·8 per cent. lower than the 1972 figure, going by the RPI, and 28·9 per cent. lower, going by average earnings. If the figure was right in 1964, it is certainly too low now, by a long way. If it was right in 1972, it is too low now.
The significant thing about the work of the Select Committee and the evidence that was given to it was that most people—the right hon. Member for Taunton was an exception—who gave us evidence—I regret that that included those who in the past have played a principal part in the working of the Top Salaries Review Body—felt that the present salary of hon. Members was about right, but—I think that these are the words—perhaps somewhat too low. In other words, those witnesses felt that the salary appropriate to a Member of Parliament ought to be lower than the salary that they thought appropriate in 1964 and 1972, to which the House agreed on those two occasions.
The main point that the House must face up to in debating and considering the issue is that the salary is too low and that it has got too low as a result of the process that tonight the Government are asking us to perpetuate In the end and in the beginning it is not a decision for the TSRB to take as to what the rough salary ought to be. It is a decision for the House to take a view upon. The House did take a view. In 1975 the House passed a resolution by a large majority in favour of linking our salary to that of a specified grade in the public service. By a tiny majority it specified the grade that it would like to choose, which was that of an assistant secretary in the Civil Service. Again, in 1980, we passed a resolution saying simply that we approved of linkage to a specified grade in the public service.
It was therefore my view, the House having twice by considerable majorities expressed its opinion in favour of linkage, properly speaking, that what we should do is to put that issue to the House once again, and if the House repeated that decision that should be regarded as the end of the matter. We should then proceed in future upon that basis. The argument that is mounted against that is that the job of a Member of Parliament is unique and, therefore, one cannot possibly link the salary to any basket or anything of that nature. Of course the job is unique. All jobs are unique, but that does not stop one from having a view as to where roughly any unique job stands in the spectrum of what ought to be poorly paid jobs and highly paid jobs.
The job of the Clerk of the House is unique. Can anyone think of any other job in the country comparable with that of Clerk of the House? It actually is unique. There is only one of him and there are 635 of us, but his salary is not just plucked out of the clouds. It is related to Civil Service salaries. I think it equates to that of a permanent secretary, not because he does the job of a permanent secretary but because it is thought that roughly that is where that kind of job fits into the salary spectrum.
There is no problem whatsoever in that degree and that kind of linkage. Those of us who have gone for proper linkage over the years have had that attitude to it. We do not deny the claim that the job of a Member of Parliament is unique.
Another mistake that we commonly make in discussing the subject is to feel that what we are doing is deciding our own salaries. Of course we are, but we are also doing something rather more important. We are discussing what the salary of a Member of Parliament ought to be. We may not be the people who should be here. It may be that by setting the salary at its present level we are cutting out the people who ought to cut us out. There are many people in the country who would not seek to become Members of Parliament, because the salary is too low. There are some people who, when they become Members of Parliament, achieve a salary which they have not previously enjoyed, but there are fewer and fewer of them. There are far, far more people who, when they become Members of Parliament, suffer a reduction in their standard of living and, more important, who face that reduced standard of living to an intensifying extent for the rest of their lives.
That is the mistake that we are making. We are cutting Parliament out as a possible, or remotely attractive, proposition for a very large number of people who ought to be willing to come here. Once again, I tried to put a passage into our report which made that point, but naturally it did not attract a majority of my fellow members of the Committee. Until the House takes that broader approach to its decisions, we shall always go on in the mess that we are in now, and we shall always go on undervaluing ourselves and, more important, undervaluing the job which we are imperfectly doing.
I think, Mr. Speaker, this is my swan song on the subject. I am heartily sick of it and I am heartily sick of the way in which it is hon. Members, and not the Government, who will not do what needs to be done. I cherish the fond thought that perhaps some day there will come a change of heart and that a greater respect for the House of Commons will come about, and with a greater recognition of the status that hon. Members should enjoy in the spectrum of other jobs and salaries.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I shall confine my remarks, not to the current situation but to the future, because I was a member of the Select Committee, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), and I am glad to have had the opportunity to sit on that Committee.
Again, the Government are casting their baleful eye on the matter of Members' salaries. The record of successive Governments in this regard has been, to put it mildly, disappointing. Progress was achieved when the chairmen of the 1922 Committee and the Parliamentary Labour Party Committee worked jointly on the problem. In my view, the involvement of the Top Salaries Review Body has been generally beneficial, and I welcome the Government's commitment to a review next year by that body.
Disappointment has arisen because successive Governments have too often intervened to cut back or delay the implementation of the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. It was very much in the minds of the members of the Select Committees at all stages of their discussions and in the taking of evidence that we could have little confidence, based on the record of Governments, that the Government would implement adequately the recommendations made by the Top Salaries Review Body. That is the reason, or one of the reasons, why the Select Committee took the view that it would not be good enough merely to leave the situation to a four-yearly review by the Top Salaries Review Body, but that in addition we should have a mild form of linkage to maintain the salary position within reason during the four years between the major reviews. If we had more confidence in the Government to accept the full recommendations of the review body, such linkage would not be necessary. Again I make the point that the work of the Select Committee, its deliberations and its decision were based on what we believed would be practical and reasonable and would therefore commend itself to Members of this House and also—sadly, in vain—to the Government of the day.
There were two simple recommendations. As hon. Members will have realised, not everyone on that Committee necessarily agreed that the recommendations went far enough. They were a compromise, but in my opinion they were a balanced and practical compromise, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government have not accepted them in full.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South said, we are back to square one. We have not progressed. In my view, the salary base now is too low, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said. Perhaps I am not as bold as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was in putting forward his figure, but I would say that £20,000, as of now, is a reasonable figure. A recommendation of the correct salary will be made by the Top Salaries Review Body next year, and I, for one, am likely to be happy with that recommendation.
I make the point to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton that it is not the Top Salaries Review Body that decides. It recommends, and it is for Parliament to decide. However, I believe that it is right to have an outside body to look at the problem. My right hon. Friend


suggested that perhaps Parliament ought to settle its own salaries without the benefit of outside advice. I cannot see that as a practical proposition, based on the difficulties that have arisen over the years in that respect.
The key question remains. We get a recommendation next year, but will the Government accept it? If the jump from the present figure to the new figure is, in the Government's view, too large, we know from experience—if the previous record is anything to go by, and I fear that it is—that they will limit or delay the recommended increase. Therefore, I appeal most strongly for Members to have confidence in themselves, in the job that we do here, and in our standing as elected public servants. Based on an outside review body's objective recommendation, we must vote for an adequate salary for the job in hand.
If the House supports the Treasury Bench motion and thereby rejects the second recommendation of the Select Committee, we are as Members once again severely exposed to the vagaries of Government decisions on this issue. Our intention on the Select Committee was to provide, through the recommendation for annual reviews linked to the new earnings survey, a safeguard against the continuing problem of Members' salaries becoming seriously out of line between major reviews. If we throw away that safeguard, I am seriously worried that we shall never do an adequate catching up job.
I repeat that our recommendations were modest. They were not for full index linking. The only index linking that we suggested was to be based on the average increase of similar salaries throughout the country and the fact that it would be based on an historic comparison adds weight to our recommendation. We are not asking for something that would be slap up-to-date. We are asking for a comparison with a survey, the material of which would be about a year behind.
If those interim reviews resulted in the salary becoming too high, when the Top Salaries Review Body did its job at the end of four years it would be in a position to recommend that there should be no major increase. As my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Select Committee said, by throwing out this modest recommendation for keeping salaries reasonably in line between the four-year major reviews the whole problem of total linkage, voted on at least twice by the House, will erupt again. It is my firm contention that, unfortunately, the Government are again making a grave mistake, as they have done in the past, on this matter of Members' salaries and arrangements for the future.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). I think that I am the only Labour Member of the Select Committee who has spoken so far. Obviously, I speak only for myself and do not pretend to represent the views of any large body of opinion.
It is, however, tempting to refer to some of the points that have already been made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), but that would serve no purpose, because the only theme that I am aware of is that of total opposition to what the Government are proposing. So far, not a word has been spoken in support of the Government.
I shall not be provocative, because I want us to win. I know that the Leader of the House was not the Prime Minister's first choice for the job, but clearly he will need to do better if lie wants to enhance his well-founded reputation for being a liberal thinker. He certainly has not shown that in this debate. Without being too uncharitable, let me amplify what I mean.
I am not suggesting that we should set up machinery comparable with that in a factory, nor am I suggesting that we should have shop stewards, a convener or anything as proletarian as that. However, we badly need some kind of machinery that will avoid these distasteful annual debates which, as other hon. Members have said, are quite out of keeping with the problems with which we should be concerned.
The Minister hoped that the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body would be observed more faithfully in the future. He has not made a very good start. What hope is there that any Government—Labour Governments were just as bad, if not worse—in future will accept any recommendations from the Top Salaries Review Body?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the suggestion that travel facilities should be extended to children came from the Opposition. It certainly did not come from me. I do not think that I am past the age of creating children, but my wife assures me that she is past the age of child-bearing. Therefore, I have no vested interest in this matter. To the best of my knowledge, this question was not discussed widely even among Opposition Members. It is a trivial issue to bring forward in the light of the Select Committee report which genuinely tried to do a job.
Probably out of courtesy and formality, the Government say that the Select Committee's report was very constructive. It was bound to be. I pay tribute to the Chairman. Not only was he able and courteous, but he had good members including myself, who genuinely sought to achieve a consensus that would be acceptable not only to the House but to the Government. That is a fair point to make. It is always annoying when people do not recognise that we have genuinely tried to prepare a report that was acceptable, even in difficult circumstances, to all Governments. That is something that should be borne in mind.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government reluctantly accept linkage and annual review, it is almost a slap in the face to the Select Committee. It is the only Select Committee on which I have served, and it is not a good advertisement. I feel that we have just been used. It was a means of pushing a problem to the side after an embarrassing vote about 18 months ago, and here we are back to square one.
This is a difficult problem, otherwise we would not have such debates so frequently. It would be churlish not to accept that here have been many improvements. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks has only been here since 1979. I have been here for 18 years. All of us who have been here that long, or longer, recognise that there have been many improvements. We used to have to pay for telephone calls, postage and secretaries. There are many allowances. There has been a vast improvement, not only in our conditions but also in the services that are provided for us, either by those whom we employ or those who have some contribution to make. Nevertheless, there has still been a failure with regard to salary. It is the key question. It is not a party issue.
We are unique. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked what is unique about a Member of Parliament. No two individuals are alike. No two Members of Parliament are alike—thank God. I do not wish to be compared with some hon. Members. The job is unique to the extent that not only are we different as individuals but also no two constituencies are identical in size, in the number of electors or the types of problem that arise. The job is unique in that sense and it is almost impossible to define an adequate salary for it. I said so in the Select Committee.
In my constituency I am probably regarded as being well-off—"loaded", in Glasgow parlance. That does not apply to many hon. Members. If a Member's salary was his sole income, he would be regarded as being way down the social and economic scale in many constituencies. Of course it is difficult to make adequate comparisons. But we all agree that the salary is too low. That is not a Select Committee recommendation, but it is generally accepted.
What is the role of Government? I am in the minority in my party. I believe in an incomes policy. All Governments operate an incomes policy—certainly in the public sector. Irrespective of what party wins the next general election, there will be an incomes policy of one type or another. We must be realsitic. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury with his Calvanistic Scottish background and impeccable logic. But he is not dealing with a decision that will be made by the House of Commons. The decision on salaries will be made by a Prime Minister. It does not matter which party is in power. There is always the need to be seen, or to be thought to be seen to set an example. There are bound to be differences of opinion about incomes policy and wages.
The Select Committee went out of its way to take account of all the problems that face any Government. Governments make the decision. Whether we like it or not—I usually do not—Governments have the power, if they are so minded, to present the matter to the House in such a way that makes party votes inevitable. The Select Committee genuinely tried to produce some form of working arrangement that would make sense to the House and make it easier for the Government to do what I hope at least some Members of any Government also want—improvement.
Of course there must be public scrutiny of Members' salaries. I do not see many in the Press Gallery tonight. They will scrutinise what we do. They are probably filling in their expense accounts, for all I know. There is not one qualified journalist who does not earn more than a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I remember asking James Fenton, when he was working for the New Statesman, what he was paid. He was then earning half of what a Member of Parliament was paid.

Mr. Brown: It must have been some other job, or there was something wrong with the finances of the New Statesman

Mr. English: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) must have forgotten that Mr. Fenton was allowed to earn money outside the New Statesman at the same time.

Mr. Brown: I cannot think that any member of the NUJ would work for half the salary that a Member of Parliament now receives. I think that it is a trick question and I shall not follow it.
Of course we have a right to expect public scrutiny of what we do here. That is the whole purpose of getting some kind of linkage. My interpretation of the Select Committee report was that the Top Salaries Review Body would carry out a four-yearly job evaluation, as it were, to see whether there had been any significant change in the life style or work style of Members of Parliament. For example, some of my hon. Friends think that we shall be out of the EEC in a few years. Perhaps the salaries should then go down again if the work load is lessened. It seems to me quite reasonable that the Top Salaries Review Body should carry out a four-yearly general review of changes in the work load of Members of Parliament in one way or the other.
In between times, clearly there should be modest increases, linked not to the cost of living—no one could accuse the Government of accepting something that would be embarrassing to them—but at least linked to some comparable group of salaries that would make sense to us and to the public. I do not think that those are revolutionary proposals and I am disappointed that the Government have not found it possible to understand or appreciate the thinking behind the Select Committee report and to accept its findings.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he accepts the urgency of examining pensions and severance pay. I know that it was not included in the remit of the Select Committee and the Select Committee rather strained its remit in drawing attention to this, but it was legitimate because the subjects are to some extent linked. I hope that if we do not win tonight—I assume that we shall be voting on this—the Minister will at least give some indication that in future there will be a greater possibility of accepting the Top Salaries Review Body and that in the meantime urgent action will be taken to improve pensions and severance pay.

Mr. Geraint Howells: You will be well aware by now, Mr. Speaker, that we are still able to defend and stand up for our rights in this Chamber. I therefore intend to make a plea on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves in the Chamber—our secretaries.
Before doing that, I, too, pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee and to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) who chaired it to the best of his ability. I am proud of the recommendations that it made, and it is a great pity that the Government have not taken full heed of them.
Many of the secretaries have worked very hard for us over a long period. They have given of their best and they have worked long hours for little pay. The present allowance of £8,400 is supposed to cover secretarial, research and office expenses, although many people outside believe that a secretary working for a Member of Parliament qualifies for the whole of that amount.
It is regrettable that there are many hard masters in the Chamber and outside who are not paying their secretaries what they are entitled to. There are many secretaries who should be earning at least £8,000 for working for us but


who are getting only, the meagre sum of £2,000, £4,000 or £5,000. It would be interesting to know how many hon Members pay the full sum of £8,400 to their secretary.

Mr. Keith Best: There is great validity in the hon. Gentleman's arguments. However, he should acknowledge that the opposite can also be true. If an hon. Member were to pay his secretary the full amount, which is meant to encompass part-time research assistants as well as secretaries, it would be difficult for other hon. Members to fund both a secretary and a research assistant, even part-time, because there is no clear division between the two amounts. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fairest approach would be for an hon. Member to have two separate allowances, one for a secretary, and one for a full-time research assistant?

Mr. Howells: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Gentleman that I disagree with him. It is up to each one of us to defend our rights and what we should pay our secretaries.
Allowing for the employer's national insurance contribution of 13 per cent., there is only enough money for one full-time secretary. An increase of 4 per cent. would give her or him a meagre increase of 4 per cent. if the employer passed it on, which I do not doubt he would.
Even in the public sector, settlements are near to 6 and 7 per cent. The Opposition Front Bench has tabled an amendment suggesting 8 per cent. I agree with that, although there are before us proposals for greater increases.
Many secretaries do not receive overtime pay, luncheon vouchers, or London weighting. If an hon. Members keeps money aside for office expenses and research, his staff are hardly existing on what he pays them, unless he has private means. It is undemocratic that those with extra money should be able to give their constituents a better service than those without, though that happens in Britain.
The most important proposal being discussed tonight is that for the payment of London weighting. The figure mentioned by the Government of £1,016 per annum is in line with what civil servants receive. I should like that London weighting to be paid direct to the staff concerned by the Fees Office although the motion does not mention that.
If the Opposition Front Bench want the support of the minority parties in the House they should be more specific about how staff will qualify for the weighting. That is not clear. Perhaps the Shadow Leader of the House will clarify the position.
My plea on behalf of those secretaries who work so hard and diligently for hon. Members is that they should have a reasonable wage of £8,400. I hope that all hon. Members will ensure that they are paid that money in full in the years to come.

Sir Walter Clegg: I shall not go down the road taken by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), but I thank him for his words of praise about those of us who were members of the Select Committee on Members' Pay. I must confess that I was a very reluctant member of the Committee, because I thought that it was an invidious job for that Committee to have to judge our pay. However, having been appointed a member of the Committee, I attended its deliberations. I greatly

appreciated the remarks made—both in Committee and in the House—by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown).
I remind the House of our remit. It is simply
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to give further consideratio a to the desirability and possible method of conducting reviews of Members' salaries by an independent body once during the first Session of each Parliament and of adjusting such salaries during the periods between such reviews by reference to increases in the remuneration of a designated group of outside occupations, and to make recommendations to the House.
We fulfilled all that was asked of us. We offered the Government the !east that hon. Members would accept. However, that has been turned down. I take a somewhat cynical view of the way in which the Government turned down the Select Committee' s report. Why on earth did the Government set us up in those terms if they were then to reject the very modest measure suggested? The Government's alternative leads me to think—as perhaps I should have thought from the beginning—that no Government will give away the right to say "No" to a pay offer from the review body or to a formula to regulate pay between reviews. There are all sorts of incomes policies—be they written, formal or informal. I have a feeling that all Governments will say that they will ultimately decide how much Members of Parliament should get, because it will affect their standing in the country. Why w as the Select Committee set up if our recommendation was only going to be thrown on one side without something similar, and more positive, in its place? To some extent, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—whose contributions I always listened to with great respect in Committee—adopted a romantic view. I have never done so, but I confess co the Leader of the House that I am very disappointed with the result.

Mr. English: I shall briefly refer to three of the motions. However, I should like first to welcome the Leader of the House. I know that this is not the first time that he has spoken in his capacity as Leader of the House, but it must be the first time that he has spoken on a subject that is so deeply personal to hon. Members. It is the baptism by fire that all Leaders of the House have to go through.
The Leader of the House was unfairly treated in relation to motion No. 5. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, in a somewhat carping way, that the motion did not come from the 1922 Committee or from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Of course it did not; it came from the Floor of the House. It was mentioned in one of the six previous debates that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was clearly said that there was an anomaly if hon. Members could collect a car allowance and pop their children into the back of the car but could not benefit in the same way if travelling by rail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) mentioned this matter on a previous occasion, because representations had been made to him. [Interruption.] The Chairman of the Conservative Party seems to want to have a debate of his own. I think that the Leader of the House will not mind my saying that the previous Leader of the House thought out the details. Therefore, the present Leader of the House is being unfairly treated for a perfectly sensible and generous gesture.
There is one feature of Members' secretaries' salaries that has not so far been mentioned. The first van Straubenzee report, as it is familiarly known, said that the proper way to pay our secretaries would be to treat them in exactly the same way as Civil Service secretaries and secretaries of Officers of the House. The unanimous recommendation of that all-party report was that our secretaries should be put on the Exchequer payroll at the same rates of pay as Civil Service secretaries and secretaries of the Officers of the House.
Some Members pay their secretaries whatever is the appropriate Civil Service rate. Some Members pay more and I regret to say that some probably pay less. Some secretaries work for one Member, while others work for more than one. It is all a mess.
Secretarial allowances are paid in cash. It would be much better, as has been recommended by a Select Committee, if we like others outside in business had our secretaries paid for by the "company", as it were. Someone who works for ICI and has a secretary does not pay his secretary's salary personally. The company pays and it pays the standard rate. This is the arrangement for Officers of the House, civil servants and Ministers. Why should we not do the same? Nothing has been done by successive Governments to implement the Select Committee's report.
The Government are making two assumptions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated publicly that the 4 per cent. pay increase this year was negotiable. The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, the Baroness Young, also said that in her capacity of being in charge of the Civil Service. In the first year of the Government's administration civil servants were given a 26 per cent. pay increase. The increase for Members of Parliament was also quite generous. It was awarded in a year when those in outside industry could only afford about 8 per cent. It was somewhat invidious that central Government should be paying its own staff rather more than those in outside industry could afford to pay its staff in a bad year, but that is what happened.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Baroness Young said that 4 per cent. this year would be negotiable, they meant, apparently, that, unlike last year's 6 per cent. increase, which was not negotiable, more would be paid if a trade union argued. That is what has happened. Our secretaries do not have a trade union to represent them and nor do Members, and because of that we shall be the only two groups in the country to be subjected to the 4 per cent. increase. It seems that "negotiable" meant that it would be open to people to negotiate with power. In effect, the Government were saying "You cannot expect the Government to be reasonable. If you happen to have a strong trade union at your back, we shall give you more than the 4 per cent. that we offered originally. If you do not have a trade union at your back, you will get only 4 per cent." That is what has happened.
I hope that everyone will take on board the implications of that policy. I am rather surprised that the Government should wish to convey that impression. It strikes me as rather odd that they should wish to encourage the trade union movement in that way. It is not the normal line of approach that one gathers from certain members of the Government.
It is clear from motion 7 that we are modest in our claims. The Select Committee is similarly modest. There

is at least one democracy, the United States, where by Act of Congress it is stated that no civil servant shall be paid more than a senator or congressman. Some people are. The United States Cabinet is, the Supreme Court is, and various other people are, but the civil service is not, because the United States, as a democracy, makes the assumption that if people have taken the trouble to elect a legislature it is of some importance. In this country we regard the legislature as secondary to not merely Permanent Secretaries but a large chunk of the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the judiciary, Ministers and so on.
This is very interesting. I do not know whether it is simply because it is that in London it is possible for people to earn money outside Parliament. It may be that we should have a two-tier structure and say that we should have a higher salary than the people technically subordinate to us if we do not have an outside job. It is much more difficult in Washington to have an outside job because Washington is not New York. One cannot simply go and work in a merchant bank in Washington.
Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the book of the Common Market. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) gets a certain sum from the Common Market, which would be reduced if he earned more than a certain amount from an outside source. This is a very legitimate system, which should be encouraged. It may be that we should have an adjustable system of salaries—I do not know. I do not object to people having jobs outside the House of Commons, but if the fact that some people have outside jobs will limit the salary of all the Members of the House of Commons that is wrong and perhaps we should take a leaf from the book of the Common Market in that regard.
There is another respect in which even the Select Committee was extraordinarily modest. Why on earth should we say that the Top Salaries Review Body should determine this amount once every four years or however often it may be? It is extraordinary. This is an appointed body—the great and the good, chosen by the permanent secretary to the Treasury or the head of the Civil Service or the appropriate Minister, the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister. I should much rather have an appointed body, appointed by somebody else.
I should rather have a body where nearly half of it, for example, was chosen by the CBI, and an equal number chosen by the TUC, but not by the Government in either case. Perhaps there might be a self-employed person as chairman, or something of that character. Why should we assume that the appropriate body to fix our salaries is a body chosen by the Government of the day. It is improper. It should be chosen by people dissociated from the Government of the day and dissociated from Parliament for that matter.
When we come to the Government's amendments to the Select Committee's report, I can only say that I am amazed by paragraph (d). According to this, we are eventually supposed to be of the opinion
that Her Majesty's Government should instead, in the period between one such review and the next, move annual motions to effect changes in Members' salaries and in so doing should be guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups in the Public Service over a relevant period".


As has already been said, the vagueness of that is incredible. The period must be relevant, the grouping must be appropriate and then there is an average of what is appropriate.
Do we mean judges? Or do we mean secretaries? What do we mean, because the rates of pay have been vastly different? Do we mean the relevant period of the first year of this Government, when civil servants got a 26 per cent. pay increase, the second year when they got 6 per cent. pay increase, the third year when they were offered a 4 per cent. pay increase and got something approaching 5·9 per cent. or 6·1 per cent. or whatever. The vagueness is incredible. It would be much more appropriate if we got the average of the whole of the people that we represent in this country or something of that character, which was the proposal of the Select Committee, not the average of people in the public service fixed in an arbitrary up and down way by a Government who clearly do not understand their own pay policy. I do not just mean this Government. Previous Governments had extraordinary pay policies as well—I am quite prepared to admit that. I am not making a party point. To say that it should be related to the public service in that way implies that the Civil Service is more important than Members of Parliament. It also implies that the Civil Service is more important than everyone else in the country who may not be getting as much or who may be getting more in a given year. Surely, if we relate it to anything, it should be to the whole country and not just to a section of it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was both courteous and forthright when he opened the debate. He referred to the debate as a blood sport. It is not a blood sport but ineffective. All the debates that we have had on Members' pay in the seven years that I have been in the House have been ineffective. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, the reason is that Members of Parliament have not taken control. We are here to control the Government. Although I shall give full-bodied support to my right hon. Friend at the end of this debate, I should prefer to do so wholeheartedly. Now that I have given that assurance, he will probably switch off, as with many other hon. Members, having had only six hours sleep in the past 60 hours.
My right hon. Friend must consider the future. Hon. Members should ask themselves whether a general practitioner should be elected to the House without a drop in salary. Should the headmaster of a large comprehensive school be elected to the House without a large drop in salary? Should someone such as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury be able to transfer to the House from the Civil Service, where he had a distinguished career, without a substantial drop in salary, let alone whatever promotion he might have achieved? Should an assistant director of leisure services of a London borough be elected to the House without a substantial drop in salary? I could continue by mentioning a series of jobs in industry and commerce.
Even with our present salaries, most people who are elected to the House will be earning more, if we take the average earnings in Britain. Here we are on the horns of a dilemma that is normally exposed unintentionally by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who says that more people are trying to enter Parliament than

there are places and d that we are paying too much. That is a fractious argument, because one could put a tax of £3,000 a year on a Member of Parliament and end up with 635 candidates. I doubt whether the right hon. Member for Down, South or anyone else would be satisfied with all such people in the House of Commons.
The test is the one that I put a few moments ago, and I take the general medical practitioner as an example. If a general practitioner were to enter Parliament, he should earn £23,000 a year. That figure is also suitable because I derive it from page xviii of the Select Committee report and the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, which was not approved. If we relate the 1964 figure to average earnings, the present salaries are 44 per cent. too low. To restore its value would mean a 79 per cent. increase.
Not even Members of Parliament should expect to get the full increase. The big mistake that we have allowed our trade unions to make is to believe that all sections of society can be restored at the same time to their peak level. I shall take off 20 per cent. and instead of increasing Members' pay by 79 per cent. let us increase it by 59 per cent. The pay would then be £23,000 and that figure should be accepted.
The motions are basically acceptable. There is no dispute that we will and should settle for 4 per cent. this year. In an intervention that my right hon. Friend allowed me to make earlier I made the point which I have made in previous debates that, if we are to take the norm, we should do so at the beginning of the pay round and not at the end.
As I understand it, there is no great debate about the secretarial allowance. Clearly that will go up by 4 per cent. or whatever the Government figure is. There is no significant argument about that increase, although there are arguments about what the future level should be.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: The hon. Gentleman keeps on making the general assertion that there is no debate. He cannot have listened to the debate that has taken place so far. There has been major debate about why we should not accept 4 per cent. for uplifting Members' salaries and 4 per cent. for the secretarial allowance.

Mr. Bottomley: What I was saying was that there is no doubt about what we will accept. If the right hon. Gentleman was serious about the point he has made. he would have recruited more of his hon. Friends both to be here and to vote. We know that they are not here and that they will not vote. I was here at the beginning of the debate and have been here for two-thirds of it.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Was the hon. Gentleman here when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) made his speech?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Was he here for all of it?

Mr. Bottomley: No, I was not here for all of it.
The point I am making is that there is no doubt that the 4 per cent. will and should be accepted and that the Government proposals for the secretarial allowance will also be accepted. The children's travel allowance is of no consequence and provides an option for Members of Parliament. I am all in favour of people having options.
There is much doubt about the future. But there is no doubt about the Government motion or the Select


Committee proposal. It is about whether Members will say what they believe the figure should be. More than that, it is also a question whether the Government will say in a reference to the Top Salaries Review Body what they believe it should be. So far we have allowed the Top Salaries Review Body to do its work and the Government emasculates it. Then the House debates it and normally we are left to confirm what the Government have proposed, or we do something different and the Government ignore US.
We must be much more open. We must follow my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, in as courteous a way as possible, be blunt. The Government should be blunt and say what they think the figure should be. The pay of Members of Parliament should be settled in the old Parliament before the beginning of a new one. I do not care very much about what the increases are during a Parliament, but at the beginning of each Parliament the salary should be at such a level that someone in the sort of professions I referred to earlier could become a Member without significant loss of earnings.

Mr. English: When the hon. Gentleman said that there was no doubt about the 4 per cent., that might have been true when the Government first enunciated it. But the Government have since paid their own secretaries on average 6 per cent.—it is about 4·8 per cent. at the bottom of the scale and rather more at the top of the scale. The point is that it is a lot more than 4 per cent. in any case. Since there is a doubt, imported by the Government into this, because they accepted a reasonable negotiation and put on an extra 2 per cent. in round figures, why should they wish the secretaries of Members of Parliament to be paid 2 per cent. less than their own?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can answer that question later. I choose not to.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said that there was one group who could not speak for themselves—the secretaries. He is not right. There is another group who cannot speak for themselves—the Ministers. The argument that I put forward about Members of Parliament applies equally to Ministers. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider how the interests of Ministers can be considered.

Mr. Biffen: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bottomley: Instead of just saying "Hear, hear", my right hon. Friend might come up with an answer, not necessarily tonight but for future years. While he is considering Ministers, will he consider London weighting for Members who represent London seats? That is one of the worst anomalies. London weighting for secretaries is not an important issue because the salary that they are paid for working in London presumably has a London weighting element in it, although it is not specified as such.
With regard to pensions, it is ludicrous, given the average age at which people come into the House, and the disturbance to alternative careers that they might have to return to if they leave after 5 or 10 years or after 15 or 20 years, for them to be treated as if they were a civil servant or even an ordinary employee in industry, who expects to

get half his salary after 40 years or two-thirds after 40 years. It is also wrong to expect Members of Parliament to wait until they are 60 or 65 to draw a pension.
I hope that the Government will make sure that the House gets the opportunity of putting forward its view. The Government can put forward their view, and if necessary present it to a review body. Let the Government be as plain and blunt as I am. I am giving them my support. I hope that they will support my suggestions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am concerned not about our current pay and allowances, but about another matter. I agree with the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). The real answer to the question is that the House should determine its own pay and have the guts to recognise that we have underpaid ourselves for many years and get it right. However, we are right to say that we do not have the guts to do that. Therefore, we look for palliatives and other alternatives.
The reason why we do not have the guts to do that is shown best by the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). He has got to the stage where, if the Government say something, he must do as the Government tell him. If he has got to that stage so early in his career in the House, we know exactly why we are in this mess.
I prefer the churlishness of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I would go with him into any Lobby, because it is clear that he thinks about what he will do before he votes. He does not just do what the Leader of the House tells him.
As long as we are in this situation we shall not be paid the salary that we should receive. The sum of £14,000 for a Member of Parliament is ridiculous. Members of Parliament in Botswana are better paid than we are, even though it is among the 25 poorest countries in the world. We are the seventeenth richest country in the world, yet we dare not pay ourselves a decent salary.
I pass from that point, because for the moment my perception is that our most important need is not to deal with current salary and allowances, but to recognise that the status of Members of Parliament has so changed that any of us who leave this place after the age of 40 are unlikely to work again for a long time, and may never work again.
At the general election, 45 Labour Members of Parliament lost their seats. At least 12 had to apply for help to the Parliamentary Labour Party benevolent fund, which is about as low as one can get. Eight of them went on asking for help for a considerable time. I know that four of them have not worked since the election and there may be more.
I know from my experience that many ex-Labour Members of Parliament have taken jobs that were non-jobs. One is going round trying to sell Labour Weekly. Another man, in 1970, went back to his post as a printer in Fleet Street but was not allowed to become a printer. He was left to sweep the floor.
It used to be the case that to enter the House was to achieve a status which, when one left, meant that one could always command a job. I suppose that the majority of Conservative Members can still do so, although, as I understand it, it is not so easy now. It is manifestly much more difficult for a great many of my hon. Friends.
The most important thing that the House has to recognise is that when we come here we seriously damage our job prospects. Not only do we take cuts in salary but we lose chances of promotion. If I had stayed out of the House, I should probably have been a judge. As a judge, the Government would be giving me a rise of 18 per cent., even though they recognise that after 15 years, however old I was, I should receive a full pension and not a mere forty-sixtieths. Yet the Government think that it is necessary to pay judges 18 per cent. in order to maintain recruitment.
I believe that we are worth more than that. We are worth a decent pension when we reach the age of 65. We have to recognise the fact that when we leave the House—especially if we leave it as a result of an electoral whim—we may not be able to earn a decent living. We owe it not only to ourselves but to our families to ensure that some kind of assurance is given for that time. What that assurance should be is a matter for discussion.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you did not select my amendment, which would have allowed us to put to the vote the general principle, but I recognise that the amendment, as I tabled it, has some defects. It should be possible to devise a pension scheme that applies for as long as ex-Members remain unemployed. If that unemployment continues until the end of their working lives, they should be paid a pension until then.
If that is difficult to construct I suggest that there should be a pension after a period of at least two Parliaments. I should be willing to say one Parliament, because many of the hon. Members who lose their seats have been in the House for only one Parliament, having been elected to marginal seats. There might of course be difficulties about that. As a result of a by-election, a Liverpool Member entered the House the day before a general election. Had he lost the seat the following day under such a scheme he might have left with a pension for life, but there are ways of overcoming that difficulty.
I have looked for precedents. Researches in the House have not shown me alternatives elsewhere, but some of my hon. Friends who have wide experience of Europe tell me that in Holland and Germany there are precedents for people receiving a pension for a period. Even in this country there are the judges, to whom I have referred, policemen and many people in the public service who receive a pension at an age lower than the retirement age.
We should recognise that our job is so unique, and our job prospects when we leave here so difficult, that we should have that assurance. I am glad that the Leader of the House said that the Top Salaries Review Body would look at the matter. When it does, I hope that it will consider seriously what should be done to deal with this difficulty.

Mr. Harry Greenway: There is the interesting example, which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has not given, of a field marshal. That is a unique distinction to achieve and he retires on full Service pay for the rest of his life, on the basis of the principle that he is not expected to do any other work. It is worth putting that into the maelstrom of the interesting and important remarks of the hon. Member for York.

Mr. Lyon: There are other examples. There is the Lord Chancellor. I was too sensitive to mention Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Order. He does not.

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry that I have been misled. However, the principle is perfectly clear. What worries me is that colleagues who have had the status of a Member of Parliament, whom we regard in this House as hon. Members and who have given of their lives to the House of Commons and the service of their country, should go on to what is virtually an unemployment job heap, and not be given the opportunity of some kind of assurance.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I wonder whether it would be possible for the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) to get together and arrange a coalition with those of us who are over 60? When one reaches 60, one has one's pension, it is reduced, and it is difficult, but normally one's family has grown up. My hon. Friend the Member for York is right when he says that many people leave this House at the age of 40 or 45 and never have another chance of employment. Perhaps those of us who are over 60 should form a coalition and vote something down when the next chance occurs.

Mr. Lyon: I would prefer it if not only the chairmen of the respected parliamentary parties formed a coalition but if Members of the House did so. If we voted, we could put that lot in their place. the reason why we do not vote was given by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I only wish that we had the chance to vote tonight.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Perhaps I might correct the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke about a field marshal retiring. I remind the House that a field marshal never retires. He continues on active Service pay.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I should like to take up the theme of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), whom I used to refer to as my hon. Friend. He said something that must strike a chord in the hearts of all those who normally take part in these debates. One sees the same team batting, from both sides. The hon. Member said. "Here we go again", and that when we come round again, whatever the review body decides, we shall be back at square one, because Members of Parliament lack the courage to do what they know should be done. I entirely agree with the hon. Member.
I came here in 1964. It has been said today that we should know when we come here what the salary is likely to be. On that occasion—for the first time, as far as I know in the history of paid parliamentarians, which goes back to 1911; I have never believed in the hair shirt philosophy that Members of Parliament should not have reasonable or above-average salaries—it was decided that the salary was to be the figure set by Lloyd George in 1911. In 1963, when Lord Home was the Prime Minister, he and the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), because the salaries of Members of Parliament had not been increased for six years since 1957, and to save party rancour and stop hon. Members from standing up and saying that we need to set an example, it was agreed that, for the first time, our salaries would be taken out of parliamentary hands and be given to Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C. We knew that, at the beginning of the new Parliament in 1964, Members of Parliament would get a salary increase. It was almost


double. It had to be, because the salary was £1,750. That is what Members got in 1964. For Back Benchers it went to £3,250. However, again, it was fudged. The Labour Party, which was in power, decided to make a grand gesture in respect of Ministers' salaries. Actually, there was a delay of six months, deferring to what we call the pension lobby, before Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers got their salary increases.
But Back-Bench Members of Parliament picked up the £3,250. Another seven years went by. Our late colleague, Charles Pannell—Lord Pannell as he subsequently became—in coalition with my noble Friend Lord Houghton, tabled a Private Member's Bill. The then Leader of the House persuaded them to withdraw the Bill and said that we would once and for all stop the fudging and mudging and introduce the Top Salaries Review Body. It was a sensitive issue for Members—I believed that we could deal with it—to be determining our own salaries during periods of wage restraint, and so on.
Every time that Parliament has dealt with the matter—the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right—the Government have interfered. The Government, with the power of the payroll vote and party loyalty, which we all recognise, manage to get their way and substantially to interfere with what we have given to an outside body to do because we are frightened to do it ourselves. Unless we grasp the nettle, that interference will continue.
None of the suggested remedies will work. They have all been tried before. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said—I intervened in his speech to point out an obvious contradiction—that he favoured letting Members know their salaries in advance. We cannot determine the last year of Parliament because that is within the gift of the Prime Minister. It could be at the end of this year. No one can say. Everyone knows that Government's seize what they consider to be the best moment to go to the country to enhance their own prospects. They would be barmy not to do so. We do not know when the Government will go to the country. My belief is that it will be next year.
Let us assume that one could declare what the salary will be for Members. The Government can rightly say that they are getting inflation down to single figures, which is what it was when they came into office, but in a period of rapid inflation, unless we adjust by some mechanism, preferably annually, the last agreement suggested for Members, we shall again have an enormous gap and Governments will fudge the issue once more. For instance, they fudged it when the Prime Minister suggested on the last increase that we should have the increase spread over three years. Due to some pressure through what is known as the usual channels the Government were gracious and said that we could have half the increase, with two quarters later on and have the adjustments in between.
I believe there is only one way to tackle this issue. We must go for linkage. The House freely voted on linkage. That linked figure has got so far out of sight that nobody, not even the most independent minded man with no fear of any consequences from his electors, would say that we should get to that figure now, because that increase would be £7,000 or £8,000. We cannot have that. That is the problem we shall face. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) followed on the

theme that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury set when he last spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, that we should not compare ourselves with the Clerk of the House, although he effectively demolished the argument about uniqueness. He went through the list. He got down to a low position in the strata of Clerks. They have plenty to aim at. They are not subject to reselection. They do not face the vagaries of Government policies. They have little explaining to do. I say this respectfully because I want to keep them on my side. If anyone needs help, it is the hon. Member for Ince. They have a good job, but when the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury read down the list, I was staggered at the low level with which we could be compared. I do not know how things have changed since then, but it has obviously altered in our disfavour.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw was searching for a comparison. I am a working class Member of Parliament sponsored by the miners. The miners have a saying "Leave it to the brusher up". When my right hon. Friend next tries to compare the scales, we shall probably be with the brusher-up unless we grasp the nettle. That is how far we shall slip, because we cannot restore our position at one fell swoop as electorally the consequences would be disastrous.
I said earlier that we do not give ourselves a proper increase because we wish to set an example. No one has ever yet said to me in an election or elsewhere "You lads are setting a wonderful example". There is a pending factory closure in my constituency with a severe reduction in employment. Obviously it is not the most convenient time to broach the subject of pay guidelines. However, on a previous occasion when another factory did close, the guidelines were broached because at that time there was much publicity about Members getting a relatively modest increase to catch up, although in percentage terms it looked a lot more than the norm that was set by the then Labour Government.
One man challenged me in homely terms. He said "You are feathering your own nest while you are down there instead of fighting for us". Another colleague was with me who represented the Left-wing view of the party, but I dealt with the man's challenge and afterwards he asked "Is that all you fellows are on?" Even when I told him what we would get what was then regarded as a substantial increase, he did not believe me but said "Pull the other leg, Michael".
The point is that no one takes a blind bit of notice of our sacrifices and examples. Anyone worth his salt knows that. People already think that we are getting three times more than we are. It is not that the public wants our salaries to be pitched at about £11,000, £12,000 or £13,000. It is simply that people do not believe the salary that we now receive.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the right way to get rid of this so-called adverse publicity, which always seems to frighten us, would be to tie ourselves to the pay of Fleet Street editors, because then it would never be mentioned?

Mr. McGuire: My hon. Friend made a telling contribution on severance pay and the hazards of life that hon. Members now face. He has now dealt even more eloquently with this nonsense about our pay. The question of Fleet Street pay and the publicity given to Members'


increase was effectively dealt with by Bill Price, a former Member of the House. I think that he was a former journalist, and he effectively demolished that argument.
No one notices the sacrifices that we make. People could not care less. In fact, the general reaction seems to be "If you are daft enough, keep on doing it but it ain't going to stop me from going for what my union feels is a proper increase".
I was once a member of the NUM. I stood unsuccessfully against Joe Gormley in 1961 for the secretaryship of the Lancashire miners. I can say truthfully, but perhaps a little immodestly, that had I kept on I would have succeeded Joe in that job and I would be enjoying far better conditions and pay, without the hazards of reselection. Even the unions that indulge in reselection have a fall-back clause whereby, once one has tested the temperature twice, one does not have to do so again. I agree with that. There is some sense in it. They do not unremittingly demand reselection. If one has gone a few times and reached a given age, one can continue in the job.
We believe, sometimes more on these Benches than on the Government side, that the unions are looking at Members' pay with envy and malice. Most members of unions feel that if we cannot fight for ourselves we cannot fight effectively for anyone else. I agree with that. A short time ago, my union, under the leadership of Joe Gormley, said that they must cease their hair shirt philosophy, and put the pay of officials equal to managers of the NCB. They did not believe that their resolution and resolve would be strong enough to improve the pay and conditions of their members if they treated themselves poorly. Joe Gormley said that they should be aiming for the top. The matter got through with little discussion. The members who attend meetings say to themselves "I have a chance to get up there and if he is making a reasonable job for me, all the better." Miners' officials therefore allied themselves with the top Coal Board officials, but not with the chairman—even the members would find that a little difficult to swallow. Nevertheless, they have a reasonable salary structure that does not depend on a hair shirt philosophy. It certainly does not depend on a balmy notion of setting an example upon which we seem to place too much faith.
What should be our attitude towards pensions? My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) touched upon the matter. Many hon. Members know that I am a Member of the Council of Europe. After a committee there one day, the chairman paid tribute to a German colleague. He announced that the report in question was the last one that would be produced by our distinguished German colleague. I had been on the committee only about 24 months.
Later, when my colleague and I were in the cloakroom washing our hands, I said that I understood that it was his last report and that I had enjoyed the others. Like so many Germans, this chap spoke faultless English. He said, "Thank you very much, Michael. Yes, I am packing up." I said, "Are you packing up because you have not been put on the list, because you are not to be reselected, or are you just packing up?" He said that he was 57 and had been in the German Parliament for rather a long time.
My German colleague had not been a member as long as me, but I did not have the shame to tell him so. He said that he had been a member for 15 years, that he would never make the front bench and was content to be a good back bencher. I asked him whether he could get a pension.
He said that conditions were reasonable and that he could get one. I said "I am interested in the subject. Can you tell me how reasonable they are?" "Well", he said, "with my years of service"—he thought that it was an exceptionally long time—"I will qualify for 75 per cent. of my salary." His salary was light years ahead of ours. But I shall leave that aside for the moment: as my point concerns the percentage of salary that my colleague there received as pension. In addition to the 75 per cent., to ease him back into civilian life, he said that he would receive a full salary for three years. No doubt that was to soften the blow. I said that it sounded very good. My hon. Friend the Member for York said that he would like some pension arrangement to take effect after one Parliarnent and he gave the reasons for so thinking. I came here rather early from a mining area at the age of 38. The idea of having to go to 68 to get half pay makes me extremely angry. The pension scheme should be structured for hon. Members who come here at an average age of about 3.5. The system should not be based on a pension scheme which a person joins at age 18 or 20 or as a graduate of 23. It should be structured to the fact that the average age at which a person becomes an MP is about 35 to 40.
Dutch Members of Parliament have a salary far in excess of ours, but I am talking about the principle. After serving four years in the Dutch Parliament, if a person does not get a job, in the first year out he receives 90 per cent. of the parliamentary salary, from which a pension deduction is taken. At the end of four years, if he has still not acquired a job, he will receive about 75 per cent, of full salary. Since four years' pension contributions have been deducted from that salary, he qualifies for eight years' pension rights. That is sufficient to provide him with about one-third of his salary and such an arrangement would cover the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York.
One calculation will appeal to hon. Members. We discuss this matter only once a year, so I hope that hon. Members will not be too fidgety if I take longer than 10 minutes. Hon. Members have received a document containing comparative wealth figures for Common Market countries. The top of the tree for purchasing power is Luxembourg with a figure of 120. The German figure is 116. France, Holland and the Benelux countries are ahead of us. The figure for Great Britain is 96. Greece is at the bottom of the scale. Just above Greece, with a figure of 76, is the Republic of Ireland.
Irish Member; are troubled about how to settle their pay. The right hon. Member for Taunton made a joke about the Irish. The only people one can now insult racially are the poor old Irish. I happen to be Irish. I take great exception to such insults. Spleen is vented upon us because people cannot comment upon other races. Irish jokes are a standby for comics, and sometimes for hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a mad Irish logic. I wish that we had some of that here because the Irish have dealt with the matter sensibly. They have asked an outside body to decide the proper rate of pay for Members of Parliament and nationalised industries.
With their mad Irish logic, they have said that the Government should not interfere but that there should be a self-denying ordinance on the cowboys who, for political advantage if elections are near, want to say that they voted against such a move and that they spoke for the nurses, doctors or any other currently popular group. All the Government are required to do is to put the proposals to


the House. No debate is required. I am talking of a country which is second to the bottom of the scale in terms of prosperity, cost of living and purchasing power in the Community. The Irish pension scheme is based on fortieths. Thus, if a man serves 27 years in the Dail he receives 27-fortieths, and he cannot contribute any more. Moreover, he can draw that pension, I think that this meets one of the points raised here today. If he has served for 10 years and is over the age of 50, he leaves with those years of accrued service and pension. That is why I say that if we could have a little more mad Irish logic on this we might do a lot better.
We might even have a little mad English logic. What we have tried in the past has not worked, for the simple reason that when Members of Parliament face the reality of doing what they know in their hearts is right, we fudge it and run away and then blame the Government when we know in our hearts that we should be blaming ourselves.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take on board the fact that hardly anyone who has spoken in the debate has welcomed the proposals. There was some comment about welcoming the children's transport facilities, allowing them the same number of tickets. That might have been of use to me a few years ago, but my youngest is now 18. Nevertheless, if hon. Members feel that it is of value, I shall not vote against it. The Leader of the House should take on board the fact that nobody has welcomed the proposals in general. I believe that there is a deep reluctance to accept them. We know that we have sold the pass yet again and that the 4 per cent. is an insult.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take the mood of the House and will quickly ensure that instructions are given to the review body and that they reflect the mood of the House. We want substantial alterations in the pension arrangements. We must have a better system for the rate at which pension rights can be accrued. At present, a person who has served 30 or 40 years has to wait until the age of 65, although I understand that if he has 25 years service and is 62 years old he can surrender a little and go out. The arrangements must be brought into line with those prevailing in most Western democratic Parliaments.
Further, I hope that the Leader of the House will give instructions that the question of linkage be examined, as it is the only remedy. Otherwise, as has been said, we shall face this problem time and again and we shall fudge it time and again.

Mr. John Silkin: There has been much talk about lack of guts and courage, the cowardliness of Members of Parliament, and so on, but no mention has been made of the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no debate on this matter ever takes place in prime time. It is always late in the day, preferably after 10 o'clock at night, although we had something of a reprieve today in that we began at eight o'clock, so it is usually too late for the press and the public to hear the debate. I suppose that it is rather cowardly, really.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my Independent hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) reached roughly the same conclusion about what we

should pay ourselves. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West achieved this by discounting a little—in my view, unfairly.
While all this was going on, I had time to do a little calculation. When David Lloyd George introduced the first payment for Members in 1912, Members of Parliament were paid £400 per year. At that time, the old-age pension was five shillings per week for a single person and the average wage was £75 per year. The average wage today is £7,500 per year, so it has increased 100 times, and the old-age pension has increased by more than that. On that basis, the salary of a Member of Parliament should be £40,000 per year. That might well be the correct figure, but, however brave we might be, I do not think that any of us would suggest that our pay should be raised to that level. Perhaps we should therefore try to aim eventually for the discounted figure suggested by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West.
Frankly, I do not believe that that gap will be bridged at all. Here we are meekly listening to the Leader of the House suggesting 4 per cent. Some hon. Members are bravely suggesting 6 per cent. That is a difference of 2 per cent.—less tax, of course. We will sneak out like thieves in the night, hoping that the press and the country have not heard us, because some might say that we do not deserve a decent rate of pay.
I do not think that that is true. The work load has gathered enormously in importance and in the effort that it requires since Lloyd George's day. We have to be welfare officers as well, which Members of Parliament never were at that time. Our days are much fuller, and our work is much harder.
In the light of that, I do not understand why there should be such an objection to getting some other body to decide the matter for us. We have not the guts to do it ourselves. We all accept that we are underpaid. Why on earth do we not let some other body do the work for us?
Several precedents have been given us. I did not know about the Republic of Ireland, but I did know about Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the United States of America. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) that Congress has a splendid resolution saying that no civil servant may be paid more than a member of Congress. That is the way to get a high salary for a Member of Parliament. The civil servants will then ensure that we are paid properly.
Let us have an automatic linkage and work it out properly. There are the beginnings of that in the Select Committee report, although it does not go as far as I would have liked. It certainly did a great deal of work, and rather more speedily than the Government either knew or wished. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman, and his Committee on having produced it so rapidly and opportunely.
In the light of a long debate, I think it wise to concentrate on just a couple of items. All the rest have been dealt with strongly. Those items on which I shall concentrate have not really had their full measure of discussion. The first is the question of secretaries' pay and inner London weighting.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) asked for an explanation of annual London weighting allowance of £1,016 for secretaries. Incidentally, that figure is now out of date. I gather that it should be £1,142, based on the


London weighting for secretaries in the Civil Service who work alongside our secretaries in the House. It applies to anyone who works in the Inner London area. It is as simple as that.
There is a distinction between a secretary who works in Inner London and one who works in the provinces. There are hon. Members who represent constituencies in the provinces and who have secretaries there. Of course, the cost of living is more in London. We have all accepted that. We accepted it for ourselves. There is nothing unusual about that.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Hon. Members who do not have London constituences but who live in London and have no other residence do not get a London weighting.

Mr. Silkin: That is perfectly true, but on the other hand they get allowances that London Members do not get, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Those hon. Members in the circumstances that I have just described do not get any allowance whatever.

Mr. Silkin: I stand corrected. I am astonished. I thought that London Members did rather worse than provincial Members. Perhaps the Leader of the House can enlighten us on this, I see that he remains seated. I thought that he, as the Leader of the House and a provincial Member must know. Perhaps we can compromise the issue. I do not want to take up too much time.
If the Inner London allowance is paid to London Members, it strengthens the case for a large Inner London allowance for provincial Members. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will begin to press for that. I am astonished that he has not tabled an amendment on that.

Mr. Biffen: My silence was intended to be a mercy to the House. I should explain that I am certain that the circumstances of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) are quite different from mine, as a Member of Parliament for a rural area and as an office holder. However, I think that I fully understand my right hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has had his fun, but next time he should table an amendment. He should speak on it in the relevant context. We are discussing, not payments to hon. Members, but payments to secretaries. We are discussing why they should receive Inner London weighting. They work alongside secretaries who receive Inner London weighting. Inner London weighting is not unusual. Let us consider the allowance. We have an extraordinary idea of what a top salary is. Can it be that £14,000 is a top salary? That is our salary and it is subject to the Review body on Top Salaries. We have a most extraordinary idea of a top salary.
We must do something about our secretaries. As the Leader of the House said, the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his secretary is an important, personal political relationship. However, it is a financial relationship in which the secretary gives of her time and career so that she can assist the Member of Parliament. It is not right that secretaries should have to take what little there is available. If, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, we were paid sufficiently, we could

pay our secretaries out of that amount. No doubt that was true in David Lloyd George's day. However, the modern equivalent of £400 in 1912 is £40,000 a year. 1 would willingly make that exchange.
We have not debated the subject of severance payments in detail, but I shall spend three minutes on it. Any hon. Member who leaves the House can get a severance payment, subject to age and length of service, ranging from six to 12 months. However, the conditions vary slightly. For example, if one's constituency disappears in a major boundary redistribution one becomes eligible. the difference between a major and a minor redistribution might be only two constituents. If an hon. Member is defeated in an election he is also eligible. However, any hon. Member can make himself eligible, even if there is no major redistribution and even if he does not contest his seat. He need put down a deposit of only £150 in any constituency. He need take no part in the election, but he is then entitled. 1 am over 50—although hon. Members may not have guessed it—and have been a Member of Parliament for more than 15 years, although hon. Members will be unaware of that fact. Therefore I am entitled to a year's severance pay. I need only contest a constituency such as Oswestry at the next election to get a year's severance pay. How ridiculous.
In other words, the House has said that if an hon. Member wants to get his severance pay he can do so. Why not say that every hon. Member—whether he retires, is defeated or is the victim of a boundary redistribution—should receive severance pay on the scale laid down. It is not a generous scale. If we slightly amended the Congress resolution and provided that no civil servant may do better in any way than a Member of Parliament, there would be a great difference. Civil servants do extremely well in comparison with us when it comes to retirement pensions.
I conclude by saying that I think that there are three issues on which Me House should divide. These issues are the percentage increase for Members of Parliament—I believe that it should be 6 per cent. and not 4 per cent.—the secretarial allowance and severance pay. There will be free votes, of course, and I cannot bind anyone. I do not wish to do so.

Mr. Biffen: This has been a fairly lengthy debate, although not particularly so by the standard of debates on this subject. The debate has had its nuances and changes of mood. It was much enlivened in its later stages by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who must have been inspired by the consideration of the Northern Ireland Bill. The hon. Gentleman brought to our proceedings an encyclopaedic consideration of our problems, which added to the charm and compelling nature of his case. Alas, I cannot accept his arguments on linkage.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that this was a baptism of fire for me, and that is probably true. Given that there is real diffidence about considering these matters in the House, the debate has proceeded in a good, measured and constructive fashion. For all our allegations of cowardice and almost total reluctance to address ourselves to these great issues on pay, it seems that we overcame our inhibitions. In doing so we were immensely assisted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and by all those who served with him on the Select Committee.
It is proposed in the motion that Members' pay and the secretarial allowances should increase by 4 per cent., which reflects the pay factor in the Estimates. This has not been universally welcomed in the House, but I was reinforced by the support that I received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). I note that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) intends to divide the House on Members' pay. The increase of 4 per cent. is a value-judgment figure. It is somewhat less than generous, but it is defensible.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is there a group of workers covered by the Estimates which has been offered 4 per cent. and accepted it?

Mr. Biffen: There is not. If I had had such evidence, I should have used it.
The proposals for the secretarial allowance have given rise to a sharp feeling of anxiety. I take note of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) and of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I accept that there is concern about the comparison to be drawn between what happens to those who are employed in the Civil Service and work alongside secretaries employed by Members and what happens to Members' secretaries themselves. The differences in terms and conditions give rise to problems. That is why it is important that the review body should have an early remit to consider the allowances. In that context, I also took note of the argument put forward by the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and for Nottingham, West, that not only the sums, but the way in which the sums are paid are matters for consideration by that body.
The debate has also ranged widely on matters other than pay. Perhaps the most significant single topic that featured in the speeches was that of pensions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has made his views on this subject clear on many occasions. I am sure that the House was pleased to have those views reinforced this evening. He again marched in step with the right hon. Member for Openshaw.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) made a particularly effective and poignant speech, in which he referred to some of the difficulties faced by our colleagues after their defeat at the last election. I sense that this is something on which feelings in the House are not only strong, but are rising. Although the TSRB has recently examined pensions, it is appropriate that this should again be one of its early considerations.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) made a powerful speech on the problems of severance. The matter was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Deptford. Although I sound as though I am passing the ball down the line, it is a fact that no really effective judgments can be made on these matters until we have the measured judgment of the TSRB. The important thing is to have these matters remitted to it as speedily as possible so that it can begin its work this autumn.
Needless to say, during the debate the question of the general level of Members' pay was raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) made a distinguished speech. It was the only one that supported my position, and I am extremely grateful to him for so

doing. He said that the absolute level of Members' pay was unacceptably low, and he hoped a remedy would soon be found. I enjoyed his powerful contribution.
The item that formed the core of the debate, notwithstanding the importance of the 4 per cent. issue was the report of the Select Committee. I welcomed the words of the right hon Member for Deptford on the importance of the TSRB. One or two previous remarks by his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), could at least bear the interpretation of his being somewhat less than enthusiastic about it.
We shall not proceed to a more settled consideration of these matters unless the review body has the fullhearted support and confidence of the House. Central to the recommendations of the Select Committee is the role of the review body.

Mr. George Cunningham: That sticks in the craw of many of us a great deal. Apart from the fact that Governments have on many occasions rejected the recommendations of the Committee, in this Parliament the Prime Minister gave a promise to the review body that the Government would implement what it next recommended. She went back on that promise, and the right hon. Member voted in the Cabinet to support her.

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman feels that there has been a deplorable standard of conduct by successive Governments in respect of the review body, I only hope that at this hour he will feel sufficiently uplifted by my charitable comments about the body to take encouragement and not repudiate me as though I were here to perform a cynical exercise.
As to the work of the Select Committee and the Government's reaction to it, I understand that the authors of the report are rather disappointed that it has not been accepted in full by the Government, but I doubt whether the Government's reaction merits some of the language used in the debate. The hon. Member for Provan said that the Government's reaction was a "slap in the face" to the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) said that the Government's reaction was "cynical". My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said that he was unwilling to trust the Government—I do not mean that in the harsh sense—in the light of their past behaviour.
The difficulty has been the Government's reaction to the choice of comparator for the linkage and whether the figure produced by the comparator should be automatic or should come to the House for authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South, the Chairman of the Committee, said that the House could not abandon its ultimate responsibility for determining Members' salaries. Are the Government entitled to say "We accept the principle of linkage, although we have a different comparator from the new earnings survey, but we believe that it would be unwise to establish the precedent of automatic pay increases during a four-year period where the House did not have the responsibility or was not required to make a judgment on those matters."
The comparator of the new earnings survey is not the most satisfactory. I gave some reasons for that in my opening speech. I inquired about the percentage change in earnings within the lifetime of this Parliament. The new earnings survey comes up with a figure of plus 53 per cent., against average earnings of plus 36 per cent. If that


was believed to be the means whereby an automatic pay increase would be secured, the position would be politically embarassing and would demonstrate the wisdom of having another comparator and of the House being entitled to have a view on the matter.
For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to support the Government's adjustments to the Select Commitee report, because I believe that that is the best way in which to proceed.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 136.

Division No. 201]
[12.09 am


AYES


Atkinson,N. (H'gey,)
McDonald,DrOonagh


Bagier,Gordon A.T.
McGuire,Michael(Ince)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
McNamara,Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Mitchell,Austin(Grimstone)


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cohen,Stanley
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Cook, Robin F.
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Cowans, Harry
Snape, Peter


Crowther,Stan
Soley,Clive


Cunningham,G. (Islington S)
Spearing,Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Stoddart,David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Straw,Jack


Dormand, Jack
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Evans, John (Newton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Foster, Derek
Woolmer,Kenneth


Garrett, John (Norwich S)



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


HomeRobertson,John
Mr. Michael English and


Howells,Geraint
Mr. Frank Hooley.


Lyon,Alexander(York)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Ancram,Michael
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Glyn,Dr Alan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodhew,SirVictor


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Berry, Hon Anthony
Greenway, Harry


Best, Keith
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt, Edm'ds)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Blaker,Peter
Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)


Boscawen,Hon Robert
Hampson,DrKeith


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Hawkins,Paul


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Hayhoe, Barney


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck,Antony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Butcher,John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling,Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chapman,Sydney
Lamont,Norman


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Lang, Ian


Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cope,John
Lee, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lyell,Nicholas


Dunn,Robert(Dartford)
Macfarlane,Neil


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacGregor,John


Eggar,Tim
McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)


Eyre,Reginald
Major,John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marlow,Antony


Finsberg,Geoffrey
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fletcher,A (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mather,Carol


Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles
Mayhew,Patrick


Forman,Nigel
Mellor,David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller,Hal(B'grove)





Mills,Iain(Merdien)
Sims, Roger


Miscampbell,Norman
Skinner,Dennis


Milchell,David(Basingstoke)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Moore,John
StradlingThomas,J.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Myles, David
Thompson,Donald


Nelson,Anthony
Thornton,Malcolm


Newton,Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow,Cranley
Trippier,David


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter


Patten,John(Oxford)
Waddington,David


Pawsey, James
Wakeham,John


Percival,Sir Ian
Waldegrave,Hon William


Pollock,Alexander
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Rathbone,Tim
Ward,John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Warren,Kenneth


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, Bowen


Rhys Williams,Sir Brandon
Whitelaw,Rt Hon William


Ridley,Hon Nicholas
Wiggin,Jerry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton,Nicholas


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wolfson,Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, SirGeorge(Action)


Rossi, Hugh
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury,Hon Timothy



Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Mr. David Hunt and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1982 should be at the following yearly rates—

(1) £14,510 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and
(2) £8,460 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.—[Mr. Biffen.]

MEMBERS' SALARIES

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That the salaries payable to Members of this House in respect of service on and after 13th June 1982 should be at the following yearly rates—

(1) £14,510 for Members not falling within paragraph (2); and
(2) £8,460 for Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 11975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.—[Mr. Biffen.]

MEMBERS' OFFICE, SECRETARIAL AND RESEARCH ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, the limits specified in the Resolution of this House of 5th June 1981 in relation to the allowances payable in connection with a Member's office, secretarial and research expenses should be raised so as to make the limits—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the Resolution (allowance in respect of aggregate amount of general office expenses and expenses on secretarial and research assistance), £8,752 for the year ending 31st March 1983 and £8,820 for any subsequent year; and
(b) in paragraph (b) of that Resolution (provision for enabling a Member to make pension contributions in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him), £875 for the year ending 31st March 1983 and £882 for any subsequent year.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Amendment proposed: (a), to leave out '£8,752' and insert '£9,022'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 132.

Division No. 202]
[12.22 am


AYES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Roper, John


Cohen, Stanley
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cook, Robin F.
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Crowther, Stan
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Snape, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Soley, Clive


Dormand, Jack
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
Stoddart, David


Foster, Derek
Straw, Jack


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Greenway, Harry
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winterton, Nicholas


HomeRobertson, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Howells, Geraint



Lyon, Alexander(York)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonald, DrOonagh
Mr, Michael English and


McGuire, Michael(Ince)
Mr. Frank Hooley.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Ancram, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawkins, Paul


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Berry, Hon Anthony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Best, Keith
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Blaker, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bruce-Gardyne, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bryan, SirPaul
Lamont, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Lang, Ian


Buck, Antony
Lawrence, Ivan


Butcher, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lee, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Macfarlane, Neil


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
MacGregor, John


Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Major, John


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Marlow, Antony


Clegg, Sir Walter
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Cope, John
Mather, Carol


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Mayhew, Patrick


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mellor, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Eggar, Tim
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Moate, Roger


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Moore, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Myles, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Nelson, Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Goodlad, Alastair
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Pawsey, James





Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Pollock, Alexander
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Viggers, Peter


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Hugh
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wells, Bowen


Shelton, William(Streatham)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)
Young, Sir George(Action)


Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, J.



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. David Hunt and


Thompson, Donald
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the limits specified in the Resolution of this House of 5th June 1981 in relation to the allowances payable in connection with a Member's office, secretarial and research expenses should be raised so as to make the limits—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the Resolution (allowance in respect of aggregate amount of general office expenses and expenses on secretarial and research assistance), £8,752 for the year ending 31st March 1983 and £8,820 for any subsequent year; and
(b) in paragraph (b) of that Resolution (provision for enabling a Member to make pension contributions in respect of persons in the payment of whose salaries expenses are incurred by him), £875 for the year ending 31st March 1983 and £882 for any subsequent year.—[Mr. Biffen.]

TRAVEL FACILITIES FOR MEMBERS' CHILDREN

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the facilities available to the spouse of a Member of this House for free travel in accordance with the Resolutions of this House of 7th April 1971 and 22nd July 1975 on journeys within paragraph (a) or (b) of the said Resolution of 7th April 1971 should be extended to children of the Member under the age of 18; but any child's journey in respect of which facilities for free travel are provided in accordance with this Resolution should count against the number of journeys for which facilities for free travel are available to the Member's spouse.
For the purposes of this Resolution a Member's children shall be taken to include step-children, adopted children, foster children and any other child living as one of the Member's family.—[Mr. Biffen]

PARLIAMENT

Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 27th May, be approved.—[Mr. Biffen]

FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEMBERS' SALARIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House—

(a) welcomes the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries which was ordered by this House to be printed on 17th February 1982;
(b) agrees with the recommendation in that Report that a review of Members' pay be conducted by the Review


Body on Top Salaries once during the fourth year of each Parliament and that, where a shortened Parliament precludes this, the Review Body should carry out a new review not later than four years after the rates of salary consequent on the previous review first became payable;
(c) agrees with the view expressed in that Report that, between such reviews, Members' salaries should be adjusted annually by reference to increases in outside salaries, but does not accept the recommendation that there should be an annual automatic adjustment by reference to figures taken from the Department of Employment's New Earnings Survey;
(d) is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should instead, in the period between one such review and the next, move annual motions to effect changes in Members' salaries and in so doing should be guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups in the Public Service over a relevant period.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Amendment proposed: (a), to leave out from '1982' to end of motion and add
`and agrees with the recommendations of that Report' .—[Mr. Peter Thomas.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 49. Noes, 117.

Division No. 203]
[12.34 am


AYES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
McNamara, Kevin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Miscampbell, Norman


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Roper, John


Cohen, Stanley
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Crowther, Stan
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Soley, Clive


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd)
Stoddart, David


Dormand, Jack
Straw, Jack


Evans, John (Newton)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Foster, Derek
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ward, John


Greenway, Harry
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winterton, Nicholas


Home Robertson, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hooley, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Howells, Geraint



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lyon, Alexander(York)
Mr. Michael English and


McDonald, DrOonagh
Mr. Mark Wolfson.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Clarke, Kerneth(Rushcllffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cope, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Rober(Dartford)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Best, Keith
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (W wich W)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt, Hon. A.
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hampson, DrKeith





Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, Paul
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howell, Rt Hon D(G'ldf'd)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hunt, David (Wirrai)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas)
Rossi, Hugh


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Silvester, Fred


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Norman
Skinner, Dennis


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)


Lee, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Macfarlane, Neil
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


MacGregor, John
Thompson, Donald


McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Thornton, Malcolm


Major, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Trippier, David


Mather, Carol
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Mellor, David
Waddington, David


Miller, Hal(B'grow)
Wakeham, John


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cestor)


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Moore, John
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wells, Bowen


Myles, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Newton, Tony
Young, Sir George(Action)


Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Rt Hon George


Page, Richard (SW Herts)



Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tellers for the Noes:


Patten John (Oxford)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Percival, Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: (b), to leave out from 'payable' to end and add—
`(c) agrees with the view expressed in that Report that, between such re views Members salaries should be adjusted annually by reference to increases in outside salaries as indicated in the nearest percentile in the Department of Employment's New Earnings Survey.
(d) does not accept the view in that Report that the question of Members' pensions and severance payments should be subsumed under the general heading of "Pay" to await consideration in the context of the next general review of Members' pay, but is of the opinion that, in the light of the anomalies inherent in the present severance arrangements and the increased insecurity attached to the role of a Member, the Top Salaries Review Body be requested to undertake an urgent review of pension and severance arrangements and make recommendations accordingly.'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 111.

Division No. 204]
[12.45 am


AYES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
HomeRobertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Carter-Jones, Levis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Cohen, Stanley
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Roper, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dormand, Jack
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


English, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (Newton)
Soley, Clive






Stoddart, David



Straw,Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead,Phillip
Mr. Frank Hooley and


Woolmer,Kenneth
Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Wrigglesworth,Ian



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Ancram,Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Howell,Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas


Best, Keith
Jenkin,Rt Hon Patrick


Biffen,Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blaker, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bottomley,Peter(W'wich W)
Lamont, Norman


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Lang, Ian


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Lawson,Rt Hon Nigel


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lee, John


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Lyell,Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Macfarlane,Neil


Butcher,John
MacGregor,John


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Major,John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Mather,Carol


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Mayhew,Patrick


Chapman,Sydney
Mellor,David


Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Miller,Hal(B'grove)


Cope,John
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Miscampbell,Norman


Eggar,Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fanner, Mrs Peggy
Moate, Roger


Finsberg,Geoffrey
Moore,John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Forman, Nigel
Myles, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Newton,Tony


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Onslow,Cranley


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Glyn, DrAlan
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Goodhew,SirVictor
Patten, John (Oxford)


Goodlad,Alastair
Pawsey, James


Greenway, Harry
Percival,Sir Ian


Gummer,JohnSelwyn
Pollock,Alexander


Hamilton, Hon A.
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hampson,Dr Keith
Rathbone,Tim


Hawkins, Paul
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)





Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington,David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wakeham,John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waldegrave,Hon William


Rossi, Hugh
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury,Hon Timothy
Warren,Kenneth


Shelton,William(Streatham)
Wells,Bowen


Silvester,Fred
Whitelaw,Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Wiggin,Jerry


Stewart,A(ERenfrewshire)
Winterton,Nicholas


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wolfson,Mark


StradlingThomas,J.
Young,SirGeorge(Action)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson,Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Thornton,Malcolm
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Trippier, David
Mr. David Hunt.


Vaughan,DrGerard

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House—

(a) welcomes the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries which was ordered by this House to be printed on 17th February 1982;
(b) agrees with the recommendation in that Report that a review of Members' pay be conducted by the Review Body on Top Salaries once during the fourth year of each Parliament and that, where a shortened Parliament precludes this, the Review Body should carry out a new review not later than four years after the rates of salary consequent on the previous review first became payable;
(c) agrees with the view expressed in that Report that, between such reviews, Members' salaries should be adjusted annually by reference to increases in outside salaries, but does not accept the recommendation that there should be an annual automatic adjustment by reference to figures taken from the Department of Employment's New Earnings Survey;
(d) is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should instead, in the period between one such review and the next, move annual motions to effect changes in Members' salaries and in so doing should be guided by the average change in the rates of pay of appropriate groups in the Public Service over a relevant period.—[Mr. Biffen]

Orders of the Day — Obstetric and Neonatal Care

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

12.55

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Shall we now return to reality and forget Members' salaries?
Earlier in the week when I asked the Minister whether the minimum standards of obstetric and neonatal care had been referred to the maternal services advisory committee for consideration, the answer was "No". As recently as two days ago the Minister was saying that he had not referred the question of minimum standards to the appropriate committee.
In 1976 I started a campaign to reduce perinatal mortality and handicap. I had a substantial amount of support from a wide variety of organisations and people. First, I should like to pay tribute to the Table Office, which assisted me from time to time to table innumerable questions on the problems. The questions revealed that it was a vital issue.
The second group of people to whom I want to pay tribute are those from RADAR, such as George Wilson and Peter Mitchell, who helped me with my researches. In addition, there are the people from MENCAP, who are very concerned about mental handicap. In that context I must also refer to Brian Rix and Mary Holland. I pay tribute also to Tim Yeo and Amanda Jordan of the Spastics Society. One could say that it was the Spastics Society which took up the campaign in 1978. Next week it enters the third phase of the campaign.
It would be wrong to pretend that we have not been able to bring down substantially the perinatal mortality rate in Britain. It has come down from about 17 deaths per thousand to 13 per thousand. That is a big improvement, but it is not good enough. One must accept that there should be a minimum standard of care for the pregnant woman and her new-born baby. That is the only means by which we can make comparisons.
The House and a variety of Ministers have been deceived by the Minister's Department. From time to time it would say that it would cost too much to collect that information. The low-weight, pre-term baby is the one at greatest risk. After a battery of questions and much support from the Library and the Table Office, I was told that it would be too costly to collect this information. I thought that I was asking the Minister to share information with me. The reply was that it would be too costly to collect the information.
The Minister will be very surprised to know that a professor in Liverpool, who had followed the questions, told me that he could not understand why I had not been told the information, and he supplied the answer that had been provided by the Minister's Department. I do not know why the Minister or Parliament should be denied information on minimum standards of care, On the basis of the minimum standard we can make our judgments about what should be done. I can understand the Department's concern about not interfering in the activities of area health authorities and regional health authorities. However, we are saying that that is the minimum standard. Anything more would be very welcome.
I intend to raise this issue over and over again. I shall speak briefly, for a Welsh Non-conformist. I shall speak

for only 10 minutes. That will give the Minister twice as much time as me. En that time, I expect him to give a full answer and I expect to be able to intervene briefly, Over the years we have tried to obtain minimum standards. I have been involved since 1976. The Spastics Society has been involved since 1978. The Minister will find report after report from 1945 onwards. The Opie report, the Court report, the Short report, the Black report and the Peel report all say that there must be minimum standards.
I have a substantial number of friends in the Department, but, strangely, the section that deals with the prevention of handicap among the new-born seems to be evasive. I could say that it tells lies. If one severely disabled baby survives it costs the State £½ million. I would willingly pay that. Life is important. However, if the handicap was avoidable and someone did not insist on minimum standards, someone must be called to account. That is the point.
After all these years, after eminent report after eminent report stressing the importance of minimum standards, why have we not got them? The all-party group met the Secretary of State following the publication of the Short report. The Secretary of State said that the Government had announced their intention of establishing minimum standards in a debate on 5 December. Which 5 December? It was 5 December 1980. It may sound unkind, but some civil servants will have been drawing their pensions for five to eight years, while minimum standards have not been laid down. I would settle tonight if the Minister said that the Government would implement minimum standards with effect from now. I would accept that and I would feel that the debate at this late hour had been worth while.
I am concerned about the fact that complacency is creeping in. The campaign that has been conducted since 1976 reveals that there has been a fall from 17·7 cases of infant mortality per 1,000 births in England and Wales to 13·3 per 1,000 in [980. The figures are good, but they are not good enough. One of the answers is that a standard that is acceptable must be laid down.
From time to t me the Department has been sceptical about what is called positive discrimination in favour of those at risk. There are certain women who become pregnant and who are at risk. These women must be identified at an early stage. The Department has said "No. We are not sure that your facts are right." Immigrant women, for example, could be in difficulty. It was said repeatedly that positive discrimination has been applied in Sweden and that the women of the poor Mediterranean countries have a better rate of perinatal mortality than Swedish women.
At long last we have evidence in Britain that at Sighthill in Edinburgh, where a policy of positive discrimination for those who are weakest in our community who are pregnant is pursued, it is possible to achieve dramatic results. After the debate the Minister will have to return to his Department to say "The Spastics Society, MENCAP, RADAR, the professionals and the House have proved that positive discrimination reduces perinatal death and handicap. It brings in the community midwife and gives her a vital and positive role to play in our society. We must employ her skills to the maximum capacity. At the end of the day, when this has been done, there is a fall in mortality rates and a dramatic improvement in health."


Will the Minister now say "Yes, I will implement our promises to produce a much better standard of minimum care throughout the country"?

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I shall try to give as full an answer as the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has requested. He will realise already that he exceeded the 10 minutes to which he undertook to restrict himself. I shall give him as broad a picture as I can.
The hon. Member's interest in perinatal mortality and the prevention of handicap is well known to the House. When we last discussed this topic he claimed already to have tabled about 500 questions on the subject and to judge from my recent "in" tray he must be well on the way to his sixth century.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of establishing minimum standards in the maternity and neonatal services. He has voiced the suspicion that we may be seeking to get out of the undertaking that we gave about 18 months ago, or that we are taking an inordinate time over its implementation. I hope to be able to cover both these points.
To begin with, I ask him to recognise that the setting of minimum standards has been a novel departure by this country, in which we have few precedents to guide us. I know that there are some people who look on minimum standards as little more than another name for central prescription, who make no secret of their distrust of the freedom accorded to health authorities to decide their own local priorities, and who see minimum standards as a means of limiting their exercise of this discretion in an important field. However, this has not been the Government's view of the matter, nor do I believe that it is a view held by the House.
We had, therefore, to think long and carefully both about what sort of standards would be most helpful and how they should be drawn up and promulgated. We looked at the French decree on minimum standards, which has frequently been quoted as an example, and found that it was largely concerned with requirements so basic—things like running water and electric light, the availability of an operating theatre, and so on—that, thankfully, we could largely take them as read where NHS hospitals are concerned.
We studied other suggestions helpfully offered to us from various quarters but found that these were often concerned mainly with questions of professional opinion and good practice which, while important in themselves, were in our judgement rather matters for consideration by the professions concerned than for prescription by central Government. Nor, in our view, should minimum standards be concerned, except occasionally, with the siting of services or overall levels of provision. These are decisions which are best taken on the spot, in the light of local circumstances and needs. A minimum set by reference to the pattern of needs in one area can so easily be quite inadequate for the needs of another, and grossly excessive somewhere else.
The conclusion to which this led us was that minimum standards should be concerned essentially with the quality of the services provided—to provide an up-to-date yardstick of the staffing and equipment on which every

woman admitted to a maternity unit should be able to rely, for her own safe delivery and for the care of her newborn child. On this basis we approached the professional bodies informally last year for their advice on the level at which such standards should be pitched. We did not want to set standards so high that health authorities could not hope to match them in the foreseeable future, but equally there was no point in setting them so low that they would provide no stimulus for improvement. On the basis of much detailed and helpful professional advice we prepared a first draft set of minimum standards.
By this time, however, the maternity services advisory committee was fully established and getting down to work. It soon became apparent to us from reports of its progress that in its study of antenatal care the committee would be tackling authoritatively a number of the subjects which we had at first envisaged including among the set of minimum standards.
To prevent unnecessary and confusing duplication of advice, and to avoid pre-empting the committee's judgments in later stages of its work, we have, therefore, been endeavouring during the past few weeks to eliminate the overlap between the work of the committee and the draft standards. We are now close to producing a core of standards relating to the staffing and equipment of maternity and neonatal units while the committee will, we hope, produce a series of authoritative guides as to the uses to which they should be put.
I can assure the House that it is our intention to put our draft minimum standards to the maternity services advisory committee before the House rises for the Summer Recess. We should expect its comments in the autumn, and a revised draft will then be put out for wider consultation to professional bodies, the National Health Service, and to representatives of the consumer interest, as we have already agreed.
These last would include both the Spastics Society, to whose long-standing interest in these matters I wish to pay tribute, and the maternity alliance, a more recently established body with which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health recently had an outstandingly constructive meeting.
The Government see the raising of standards in maternity care as a continuing process in which public opinion, Parliament, the Government and the health services all have a part. I am encouraged by what has been achieved during recent years and by the increased awareness and debate among the professions and the public on what might be done to improve maternity service further. The discussion in newspaper and magazine articles and on radio and television programmes were generated to a large extent by the 1980 report of the Social Services Committee on perinatal and neonatal mortality which was produced under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).
The Government welcomed the Committee's report and shared its concern to achieve further reductions in perinatal mortality and handicap. More recently, early in 1981 our policy handbook "Care in Action" reaffirmed our decision to accord a high priority to achieving those aims by the improvement of maternity and neonatal services and our undertaking to establish minimum standards of staffing and equipment that are attainable within a reasonable time and with reasonable staffing and finance.
I am pleased to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the pace of the reduction in the perinatal mortality figures has


quickened in recent years. After registering a reduction of about 25 per cent. between 1974 and 1979 there was nearly a 10 per cent, fall between 1979 and 1980 from 14·6 per 1,000 births to 13·3. That was the biggest percentage fall in a single year since records began in 1928. There were two other interesting and encouraging developments. The difference between the least and most favoured health regions continued to narrow, from 7·9 points in 1974–23·6 to 15·7 per 1,000 births—to 4·5 points in 1980–15·3 to 10·8 per 1,000 births.
Mothers in social class V had a large improvement in perinatal mortality rates in 1980 compared with 1979 from 18·7 to 17·0, leading to a narrowing in the social class gradient so that the ratio of perinatal deaths in social class V to those in social class I is now 1·75 as compared with 1·82 in 1979.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is not the Minister arguing my case, namely that we need positive discrimination, because the difference for social class V is still enormous although there has been an improvement? Will he now consider much more carefully the question of positive discrimination for those at risk?

Mr. Finsberg: I have an open mind, and of course I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he does not do his case, which he has argued eloquently, strongly and with great passion for many years, as much good as he might wish by dismissing the advances. The facts show that with the work that is being done, we are narrowing the gap. I shall consider what he said, but I should need to be convinced that what we are doing is right before I consider a major switch in policy.
It is also pleasing to note that national neonatal mortality rates for England and Wales have reduced from 9·7 per 1,000 live births in 1976 to 7·6 in 1980. I am sure that many different factors have contributed to those reductions in perinatal and neonatal rates, but the devoted work of many NHS medical, nursing and midwifery staff have undoubtedly been among them.
Having made substantial progress we want to keep up the momentum so that further advances can be made. Advances do not always necessarily depend on the injection of extra money; a more effective use of available resources and a stringent examination of established procedures can lead to greater efficiency and job satisfaction as well amongst staff and, very important, a more effective and humane service to the expectant mother. The House knows that the maternity services advisory committee was set up last year to look at the maternity and neonatal services. The committee was asked first to look at ante-natal care because this was an area of particular concern to the professions, organisations and individual women who had expressed dissatisfaction at overcrowded clinics and impersonal care.
The committee, under its first-rate chairman Mrs. Alison Munro, has responded with energy and enthusiasm, and its work on ante-natal care is approaching completion.

We look forward to its report, and to inviting it to move on to the next stage of considering care in labour. It is our intention that the committee's reports will get a wide distribution and we will expect health authorities to respond positively to action recommended in them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing progress with the health authorities under the recently introduced arrangements for annual review meetings between Ministers and regional health authority chairmen.
The importance which we attach to ante-natal care is further underlined by the support we are giving to the Health Education Council for its national campaign to make women more aware of the need for early and regular ante-natal care. In this financial year we are giving the council nearly £½ million specifically for this "Mother and Baby" campaign. The importance of ante-natal care is also a part of many local health education campaigns in association with the national efforts of the council.
Many health authorities have recognised the importance of obtaining a clear picture of what is happening at local level in the maternity services as the first step in tackling problems and reducing perinatal and neonatal mortality. I commend these initiatives. I should like to see more such regional and district surveys, and in order to encourage authorities that have not yet carried out such surveys but who might be helped by information held at a central reference source my Department has funded a project of the national perinatal epidemiology unit to establish an archive of locally based perinatal surveys.
I hope, without being considered complacent, that we can therefore claim to have made considerable progress in tackling many of the problems of the maternity services, but it is, of course, the Government's intention that health authorities should continue to give priority to these services. We can play our part centrally by supporting the work of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, by funding the Health Education Council and by research, but the standard of service both in the human and technical senses is primarily a matter for health authorities and the professions in their day-to-day approach to the expectant mother and her needs.
The hon. Gentleman should be satisfied with what I have been able to tell him. I do not say "wholly satisfied", because I know enough of him to understand that nothing will satisfy him until we have reduced the mortality rate to zero. I fear it will be not only civil servants who will be drawing their index-linked pensions by then but also some of our children or grandchildren. The hon. Gentleman does a service to the House by raising these matters. I hope that at 1·23 am he has not too much of a guilty conscience for keeping you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, for a rare but welcome appearance at adjournment debates. I hope that he will feel content at what I have been able to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.